Post on 21-Jun-2018
Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi
Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)
Moudhi Mohammad Alzoman
The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of doctor of Philosophy of the University of
Portsmouth
Business School
Human Resources and Marketing Department
University of Portsmouth
Augest 2012
ii
ABSTRACT
Globalisation has significantly added to diversity in the workplace, requiring leaders to
acquire new skills to negotiate and operate in international environments; this is
especially true in the case of multinational corporations where relationships can be
complex and mono-cultural management styles can fuel conflict. The proximity of
individuals from different cultures raises consciousness of difference; therefore, leaders
must be able to deal with the reactions of those with different backgrounds to
themselves. Awareness of cultural diversity informs the way leaders define their roles
and responsibilities and requires them to carefully apply themselves to team
management.
This study proposes a theoretical model to address team-level concerns and examines
how social identity strengthens the relationship between leadership behaviour and
effective leadership. Accordingly, this study evaluates two styles of leadership:
charismatic (Conger and Kanungo, 1998) and ethical leadership (Masuda, 2005); it
relates them to two aspects of social identity (team identity and leader prototypicality).
Propositions are developed concerning how these styles of leadership would be
expected to influence leader effectiveness. It is also hypothesised that team
identification and leader prototypicality moderate these relationships. This means that
social identity and leadership behaviour can interact to create a more effective leader,
which may reduce conflict, increasing group cohesion and affective commitment to the
organisation.
This research utilises a quantitative approach to achieve its objectives. The research
participants were selected purposively from the study population, Saudi Arabia Basic
Industries Corporation (SABIC) due to its successful implementation of cultural
diversity. Paper questionnaires were distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders;
351 employee questionnaires were collected and these employees were taken from
different groups covering 90 separate leaders. A multilevel modelling analysis was used
to test the study‟s hypotheses regarding the relationships and interactions between
specific variables.
This study contributes to the existing literature on leadership and social identity by
providing empirical data regarding the significance of two leadership styles (charismatic
and ethical) for increasing leader effectiveness; this effectiveness is strengthened when
team identity and leader prototypicality moderate these relationships in private
iii
organisations in a culturally diverse context. The study findings have meaningful
implications for leadership training and development.
iv
DEDICATION
Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I dedicate this thesis to my husband. My husband has been my strength, inspiration and
motivation throughout my life and during this academic journey. Thank you for all your
love and support. I could not have achieved this goal without your continuous
encouragement. I am so lucky to have such a wonderful, loving, and supportive
husband.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been accomplished without the support, guidance and the
assistance of a number of individuals and organisation, which I heartily appreciate.
First of all, this work would not have been accomplished without the endless support
and considerate guidance of my supervisors, Professor Charlotte Rayner and Dr.
Stephen Williams. I wish here to acknowledge their invaluable advice and ideal
supervision through this research and to thank them for being supportive, inspiring and
continually motivating. They withheld no effort in devoting their time and energy
throughout the preparation of my thesis. I doubt that these words can ever reflect my
appreciation and gratitude to them for the constructive comments they provided me with
on this thesis. Many thanks to be given to Professor Birgit Schyns for her continuous
support, advice and helpful comments during the first two years of this work. I would
like also to extend my thanks to all the staff in the Business School, and the University
of Portsmouth, for their valuable support through my PhD programme.
I would like to express my gratitude to the Saudi government and Institute of Public
Administration in Saudi Arabia for supporting me during my study in the United
Kingdom.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all the departments and Saudi Basic
Industries Corporation respondents, for giving me their time, effort and valuable
information, which helped me in the completion of this research. My special thanks go
to Dalli K Al-Shammari the Director of Strategic Workforce Planning-Organisational
Development Department.
I mainly want to express my acknowledgements to my entire family for their
unwavering support. But most especially to my husband, who absorbed my frustrations,
gave me encouragement when it all seemed impossible and walked the long road beside
me.
vi
AUTHORS’ DECLARATION
Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi
Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)
Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Portsmouth
Whilst registered as a candidate for the above degree, I have not been registered for any
other research award. The results and conclusions embodied in this thesis are the work
of the named candidate and have not been submitted for any other academic award.
Papers in Refereed Conference Proceedings:
Alzoman, M. Schyns, B. (2010). The Role of Leadership Behaviour in Leading
Culturally Diverse Workplaces Effectively in Private Sectors in Saudi Arabia.
Proceedings to Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference, Vienna, Austria, 14-16
July 2010.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... v
AUTHORS‟ DECLARATION ........................................................................................ vi
Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi Arabia Basic
Industries Corporation (SABIC) ...................................................................................... vi
List of Tables................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ xvi
CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Research Rationale and Motivation ......................................................................... 2
1.3. Statement of Research Aims .................................................................................... 4
1.4. Research Objectives................................................................................................. 4
1.5. Contributions of this Research................................................................................. 5
1.6. Structure of the Study................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER TWO: SAUDI ARABIA AND SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION PROFILE ........................................................................................... 10
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2. The Saudi Arabian Business and Management Context .......................................... 10
2.3. Business Culture in Saudi Arabia ............................................................................ 16
2.3.1. Power Distance Index (PDI) ................................................................................. 18
2.3.2. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) ..................................................................... 19
2.3.3. Masculinity Index (MAS) ..................................................................................... 19
2.3.4. Individualism-Collectivism Index (ICI) ................................................................ 20
2.3.5. Short-Term -Long-Term Orientation .................................................................... 20
viii
2.4. Saudi Private Sector ................................................................................................. 21
2.5. Overview of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation profile ......................................... 22
2.5.1. SABIC Vision and Mission ................................................................................... 24
2.5.2. SABIC Rankings Among the World‟s Top Petrochemical Companies (SABIC
Report, 2010): ........................................................................................................ 24
2.5.3. Strategic Business Divisions and Products (SABIC Report, 2010). ..................... 24
2.5.4. SABIC Human Resources ..................................................................................... 25
2.5.5. SABIC Global Operations .................................................................................... 26
2.6. Summary .................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter three: literature review ...................................................................................... 27
3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2. Cultural Diversity as Research Context ................................................................... 27
3.2.1. Cultural Diversity Definition ................................................................................ 29
3.2.2 The Benefit of Culture Diversity in the Workplace ............................................... 31
3.2.3. Cultural Diversity Challenges in the Workplace .................................................. 33
3.2.3.1. Relationship Conflict ......................................................................................... 33
3.2.3.2. Group Cohesion ................................................................................................. 37
3.2.3.3. Organisational Commitment .............................................................................. 40
3.3. Leadership and Social Identity Theories .................................................................. 43
3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership ......................................................................................... 45
3.3.1.1 Charismatic and Transformational Leadership constructs .................................. 47
3.3.1.2. Comparison of Bass‟s Model and Conger and Kanungo‟s Model ..................... 53
3.3.1.3. Prior Studies Build on Conger and Kanungo‟s Work. ....................................... 56
3.3.1.4. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and Hypotheses Development
............................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.1.6. The „Dark Side‟ of Charismatic Leadership ...................................................... 66
3.3.2. Ethical Leadership ................................................................................................. 70
3.3.2.1. Ethical leadership and Leader Effectiveness Hypotheses Development ........... 73
3.3.3. Social Identity Theory of Leadership as Moderator for Leader Effectiveness ..... 76
ix
3.4. Overview of the Gaps in the Literature and Scope of the Current Study ................ 83
3.5. Summary and Model Proposal ................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......................... 90
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 90
4.2. Research Purpose and general model ....................................................................... 91
4.3. Research Design and Methodological Fit ................................................................ 92
4.4. Research Philosophy (Paradigm) ............................................................................. 95
4.5. Research Methods .................................................................................................... 98
4.6. Research Strategy-Survey ...................................................................................... 100
4.7. Data Gathering Methods: ....................................................................................... 100
4.8. Data Gathering Instruments Adopted in this Research- Questionnaire ............... 101
4.9. The Rationale for Choice of the Methodology Used in the Study ......................... 102
4.10. Sample Design and Population ............................................................................ 103
4.11. Determining Sample Size ..................................................................................... 104
4.12. Data Analysis Methods Adopted in this Thesis ................................................... 105
4.13. Instrumentation and Measures ............................................................................. 106
4.14. Human Participants and Ethical Precautions ....................................................... 109
4.15. Pilot Study Survey Population and Sample Size ................................................. 110
4.16. Validity and Reliability Tests and Inter-correlation among Variables ................ 111
4.17. Factor Analyses .................................................................................................... 113
4.18. Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ....................................... 119
4.19. Factor Analyses for Leader‟s Questionnaire (Pilot Study) .................................. 120
4.20. Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................................. 122
4.21. Participants and Procedures for the Main Study .................................................. 123
4.22. Questionnaire Response Rate:.............................................................................. 124
4.23. Employees‟ Background Information .................................................................. 125
4.24. Managers‟ Background Information .................................................................... 127
4.25. Construct Validity Using Factor Analyses Technique: ........................................ 128
x
4.26. Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire ............................................................ 134
4.27. Inter-correlations between the Five Employee‟s Scale Dimensions .................... 135
4.28. Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................................. 137
4.29. Inter-Correlations between the Two Leader‟s Scale Dimensions ........................ 138
4.30. Summary .............................................................................................................. 138
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 140
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 140
5.2. Testing the Hypothesised Relationships between Leadership Behaviours and
Leader‟s Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 144
5.2.1. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Charismatic Leadership and
Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 146
5.2.2. The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Dimensions and Leader
Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 148
5.2.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Ethical Leadership and Leader
Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 153
5.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesising the Moderator role for Leader Prototypicality and
Team Identity on the Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s
Effectiveness. ....................................................................................................... 155
5.3.1. The Moderator Role for Leader Prototypicality and Team Identity on the
Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s
Effectiveness. ....................................................................................................... 155
5.3.2. The Moderator Role for Leader Prototypicality and Team Identity on the
Relationship between Ethical Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s Effectiveness
............................................................................................................................. 165
5.4. Summary ................................................................................................................ 186
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 192
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 192
6.2. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT
............................................................................................................................. 193
6.4. Ethical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT ...... 208
xi
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 217
7. l. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 217
7.2. Research Summary................................................................................................. 217
7.3. The Research Aims and Positioning ...................................................................... 217
7.4. Selecting the Research Philosophy and Data Gathering Technique ...................... 221
7.5. From Research Objectives to Research Findings .................................................. 222
7.6. Research Contributions to Knowledge ................................................................ 223
7.7. Implications for Practice ........................................................................................ 226
7.8. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 228
7.9. Future Studies ........................................................................................................ 230
7.10. Final Thoughts ..................................................................................................... 231
ReferenceS .................................................................................................................... 233
APPENDIX A: study‟s questionnair ............................................................................. 281
- Employee Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 282
- Line Manager Questionnaire ............................................................................... 291
APPENDIX B: SABIC Permission ............................................................................... 294
APPENDIX C: Critical Values of the Chi-square Distribution .................................... 295
APPENDIX D: Ethical Review Checklist .................................................................... 296
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table (3.1) Summary of prior studies based on Conger and Kanungo‟s work ............... 57
Table (4-2): Positivist versus Interpretivist Paradigms ................................................... 97
Table (4-3): Rotated Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 25-item Charismatic
Leadership Scale (pilot study) ............................................................................... 114
Table (4-4): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Leader
Prototypicality Scale (pilot study) ......................................................................... 116
Table (4-5): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team Identity
Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................................. 117
Table (4-6): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Affective
Organisational Commitment Scale (pilot study) ................................................... 118
Table (4-7): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Ethical
Leadership Scale (pilot study) ............................................................................... 118
Table (4-8): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ............................ 119
Table (4-9): Summary of inter-correlations among the Dimensions of the Employee‟s
Questionnaire (pilot study). ................................................................................... 120
Table (4-10): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 5-item Group Relation
Conflict Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................... 121
Table (4-11): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Group Cohesion
Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................................. 121
Table (4-12): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ............................... 122
Table (4-13): Intercorrelations between the Two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions (pilot
study) ..................................................................................................................... 122
Table (4-14): Response and Return Rate ...................................................................... 125
Table (4-15): Employees‟ Demographic Data .............................................................. 125
Table (4.16): Employees‟ Nationality ........................................................................... 127
Table (4-17): Employees‟ Demographic Data .............................................................. 127
Table (4-18): Rotated Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 25-item Charismatic
Leadership Scale ................................................................................................... 129
Table (4-19): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Leader
Prototypicality Scale. ............................................................................................ 131
Table (4-20): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team
Identification Scale................................................................................................ 132
xiii
Table (4-21): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Affective
Organisational Commitment. ................................................................................ 133
Table (4-22): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Ethical
Leadership Scale ................................................................................................... 134
Table (4-23): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire .............................................. 135
Table (4-24): Summary of Inter-correlations between the Five Employees‟ Scale
Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 135
Table (4-25): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 5-item Group Relation
Conflict Scale ........................................................................................................ 136
Table (4-26): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Group Cohesion
Scale ...................................................................................................................... 137
Table (4-27): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................... 137
Table (4-28): Correlations between the two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions .................. 138
Table (5-1): Summary of Inter-Correlations between the Study‟s Scale Dimensions -
Group Level. ......................................................................................................... 143
Table (5-2): Null Mode ................................................................................................. 146
Table (5-3): Multilevel Results of Charismatic leadership as a Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 147
Table (5-4): Multilevel Results of Charismatic Leadership Subscales as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 149
Table (5-5): Multilevel Results of Charismatic Leadership Subscales as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 151
Table (5-6): Multilevel Results for Charismatic Leadership Subscale as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 152
Table (5-7): Multilevel Results of Ethical Leadership as a Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 154
Table (5-8): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 158
Table (5-9): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 160
Table (5-10): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 161
Table (5-11): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 162
Table (5-12): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
xiv
Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 163
Table (5-13): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 164
Table (5-14): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 166
Table (5-15): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 166
Table (5-16): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 168
Table (5-17): Tests Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 169
Table (5-18):.................................................................................................................. 170
Table (5-19): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship for Group Cohesion.......................................................................... 171
Table (5-21): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 175
Table (5-22): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for
Affective Organisational Commitment ................................................................. 177
Table (5-23): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Affective
Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 180
Table (5-24): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 182
Table (5-25): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group
Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 184
Table (5-26): Conclusions Regarding the Hypotheses.................................................. 188
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure (1.1): The Thesis Frame Work............................................................................... 9
Produced for the purpose of this research ......................................................................... 9
Foguer (3-1): Charismatic Leadership Stages of the Conger and Kanungo Model ........ 51
Figure (3.2): Integrated Leadership and Social Identity Theories .................................. 86
Figure (3-3): Proposed Model ......................................................................................... 88
Figure (4.1): Study Model ............................................................................................... 91
Figure (4.2) Research Design .......................................................................................... 95
Figure (5-1): An Example of Employees Nested Under their Leaders ......................... 141
Figure (5.2): The Number of Employees for Each Leader ........................................... 142
Figure (5-3): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and affective
Organisational Commitment. ................................................................................ 149
Figure (5-4): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Group
Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 150
Figure (5-5): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscale and Group
Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 152
Figure (5.6): Decision Tree for the Moderator.............................................................. 157
Figure (5-7): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Leader
Prototypicality ....................................................................................................... 172
Figure (5-8): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Leader
Prototypicality ....................................................................................................... 174
Figure (5-9): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Leader
Prototypicality ....................................................................................................... 177
Figure (5-10): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Team
Identity .................................................................................................................. 179
Figure (5-11): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Team
Identity .................................................................................................................. 182
Figure (5-12): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Team
Identity .................................................................................................................. 184
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
SABIC Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
WTO World Trade Organisations
C-K Conger and Kanungo Scale
SVA Strategic Vision and Articulation
SMN Sensitivity to Member Needs
UB Unconventional Behaviour
SE Sensitivity to the Environment
PR Personal Risk
SQ Does not mention Status Quo
PDI Power Distance Index
UAI Uncertainty Avoidance Index
IDV Individualism
MAS Masculinity
1
CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION
1.1.Introduction
Leadership behaviours are being widely discussed at the current time in relation to the
dynamism of the business environment, which is now characterised by globalisation.
Globalisation has encouraged an increasing number of formerly domestic companies to
move abroad to maximise both their competitiveness and their market share. This has
led to a growth in numbers of multinational companies; further emphasising the need
for an understanding of cross-cultural working relationships, particularly in relation to
effective leadership techniques (Alon, et al., 2011; Gakahu, 2011). As the world
becomes interconnected via globalisation, the number of people living and working
outside of their native countries is increasing. As a consequence, those in the workplace
are increasingly expected to interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds;
often this means people who speak different languages, lead different lifestyles, and
come from widely disparate belief systems and cultural backgrounds (Lui and Stack,
2009, Tong, 2011). In addition, this phenomenon of globalisation, not only challenges,
but also transforms through intellectual change, roles and behaviours displayed by
leaders (Vaccaro, et al., 2010).
This study seeks to develop current knowledge regarding perceived leadership
behaviour (charismatic and ethicality) in a multi cultural and organisational context and
the way this relates to leader‟s effectiveness. The current study is distinct from previous
studies, in that it combines two styles of leadership and social identity theory (team
identity and leader prototypicality) and examines their moderating impact on leader‟s
effectiveness.
In beginning this journey which examines leadership effectiveness, are must explore
what has been already read. Academics researching this area have suggested that
effective leadership is dependent on the how leaders at different levels of management
behave. When inspirational and motivational behaviour is displayed by managers this is
often mirrored by employees, who identify with their leader and so strive to work
together for common goals. Where leaders seek to intellectually stimulate their
2
employees this encourages them to question any previous assumptions they may have
had and can guide these employees to be more creative (Vaccaro, et al., 2010). In
relation to culturally diverse work environments McMahon, et al., (2010) argued that an
acknowledgment of commonalities and differences between group members is crucial in
establishing a comfortable working relationship. It has been noted that culturally diverse
work teams often have the opportunity to achieve a competitive advantage over and
above non-culturally diverse work teams, if they are well managed (Armstrong, et al.,
2010; Prieto, et al., 2009, Neal, 2010).
Mendenhall (2008) asserts that cultural diversity in the workplace is creating new
demands on today‟s corporate leaders. Since the success of a company highly relays on
its employees‟ work performance, multinational companies in particular must consider
these cultural differences. As Adler (2008) argues, "multicultural teams have the
potential to achieve higher productivity than homogenous teams, but they also risk
experiencing greater losses due to faulty process" (p.134). For instance; diversity may
bring about negative behaviour towards people of different nationalities in the form of
prejudice and discrimination, based on negative perceptions of individuals from
different cultural backgrounds (Hanassab, 2006). This in turn reduces group
identification, resulting in more conflict, decreased group cohesion and employee
loyalty to the organisation, directly effecting workgroup performance. Thus, this study
assumes that effective leadership of a multicultural organisation means more than just
making it operate profitably within its particular business segment; it also has an effect
on employees‟ attitudes and behaviour.
This chapter will present the research rationale and motivation for conducting this
research, the research aims and objectives and the organisation of the thesis.
1.2. Research Rationale and Motivation
Large Saudi manufacturing companies are expecting to benefit as a result of Saudi
Arabia joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Integration with the WTO allows
international companies access to the domestic market, and simultaneously affords local
companies the opportunity to enter foreign markets. According to the Saudi Ministry of
Labour‟s Statistics Report for the year 2007, the total number of workers in private
sectors in Saudi Arabia was 5,826,856, of these only 13.14% were Saudi nationals,
3
whilst the remaining 86.86% were foreign workers. These foreign nationals originated
from over 40 different countries, including those in the West, Asia and elsewhere in the
Middle East (Ministry of Labour, 2007). Therefore, in the Saudi setting it is imperative
to fully understand the barriers and opportunities that potentially arise within a
culturally diverse context (Brett, Behfar and Kern, 2006; DiStefano and Maznevski,
2000; van Knippenberg, 2011). This, of necessity, will require leaders with behaviours
that work ethically to maximise the advantage and minimise the challenges of cultural
diversity in the work place.
Based on the evidence given in section 1.1, it can be argued that those in the
multinational companies in Saudi Arabia cannot accomplish their role in the best
possible way, unless leaders acquire appropriate behaviours in relation to leading a
diverse workplace. This study examines whether a charismatic leadership style
comprises a set of behaviours that is suitable when managing multi-cultural teams.
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in a stream of leadership theory
known as “charisma” (Wilderom and Berg, 2010; Varella, et al., 2011; Sosik, et al.,
2011; Zúquete, et al., 2011). Charisma theory focuses on those leadership behaviours
that create an emotional impact for their followers; specifically, those which translate
into emotional attachment to the leaders‟ values and to the collective good (Javidan and
Waldman, 2003; Riggio, 2004; Jin, Seo, and Shapiro, 2008). Based on this theory the
concept of charisma is known generically as the “charismatic leadership” model
(Conger and Kanungo, 1998). This leader‟s style allows the determining of a connection
between team identity and leader prototypicality. This occurs through the use of shared
values and beliefs which are distinctive characteristics of the group and influence its
selection from available modes, means, and ends of action (Hofstede, 2001).
Additionally this study has used ethical leadership theory to emphasise the importance
of dealing with culturally diverse work places ethically. Thus, it is imperative that
leaders of diverse teams are aware of their own biases, prejudices and attitudes toward
those who are dissimilar. As will be shown in chapter three this connection makes
charismatic and ethical leadership styles suitable when studying the relationship
between leadership behaviours and leading culturally diverse work places effectively.
Unfortunately, very few empirical studies have been conducted to study the relationship
between them.
4
This study seeks to expand present knowledge about perceived leadership effectiveness
and perceived leader ethicality in organisational settings. It aims to explore the relevant
behaviours expected of leaders in multicultural companies and the impact of these
various behaviours on leaders‟ effectiveness. Combined with information regarding the
leadership theories themselves this research utilises social identity theory (SIT) to
enhance leader effectiveness. In this study leader effectiveness was investigated at the
team level; primarily because it is in teams that a strong sense of identity can arise
amongst followers, promoting the sense that the employees are part of something larger
than themselves (White and Lean, 2008).
Accordingly, the author also examines the relationship between the two different but
intertwined leadership behaviours and the level of relation based conflict, group
cohesion and affective commitment in the culturally diverse workplace. Additionally,
this study hypothesised that when a team identifies more strongly with the leader
prototype as salient it will also report stronger leader effectiveness within a culturally
diverse group.
1.3. Statement of Research Aims
For the purposes of this research, leadership behaviour theories (charismatic and ethical)
are discussed in relation to social identity. This study aims to investigate how leadership
behaviour influences a leader‟s effectiveness when leading in a culturally workplace. In
addition, an examination of the role of social identity is also tested as it is hypothesised
that team identity and leader prototypicality can strengthen the relationship between
leadership behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness.
1.4. Research Objectives
In order to achieve the research aims, this study has the following objectives:
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and
ethical leadership) and the level of relation conflict among culturally diverse
workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).
5
.
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and
ethical leadership) and the level of team cohesion among culturally diverse
workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and
ethical leadership) and the level of employees‟ affective commitment to
organisations in culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries
Corporation (SABIC).
To examine the moderating impact of social identity (team‟s identity) on the
relation between leadership behaviour (charismatic and ethical leadership) and
leading a culturally diverse workplace effectively (defined as low relation
conflict, high team cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).
To examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality) on
the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and ethical
leadership) and leading the culturally diverse workplace effectively (i.e. low
relation conflict, high team cohesion and high affective commitment to the
organisation).
1.5. Contributions of this Research
A. Theoretical and Empirical level
The principal focus of this study seeks to develop current knowledge regarding
perceived leadership behaviour in a multicultural context. It is distinct from previous
studies in terms of its breadth; achieved by examining two styles of leadership
(charismatic and ethical leadership) and investigating the effect of social identity theory
on leadership effectiveness. Specifically, it highlights the importance of identifying with
colleagues and the leaders as an interactive variable for leadership effectiveness. One
dimension of charismatic leadership theory is challenged (unconventional behaviour) as
to its efficacy.
First of all, this study addresses an important gap in the ongoing validation of Conger
and Kanungo measure of charismatic leader behaviour (1998) it offers empirical
6
evidence for the measure‟s predictive validity of leadership behaviour culturally diverse
workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).
The major theoretical contribution of this study is the development and empirical testing
of a model that will expand present knowledge by examining the relationships between
employees‟ perceptions of their leaders (charismatic and ethical leadership) and leader
effectiveness (defined in this study as low relationship conflict, high team cohesion and
high affective commitment) in culturally diverse workplace.
Moreover, this study presents evidence of how two leadership styles (charismatic and
ethical leadership) are related to the effectiveness of leaders. Although the connection
between leadership and ethicality has been conceptualised by previous researchers (e.g.
Minkes, 1999; Schminke, et al., 2002; Simola et al., 2010), empirical studies regarding
ethical leadership as a whole set of behaviours using follower perceptions in respect of
cultural diversity are to the author‟s knowledge not covered. Thus, this study presents
empirical evidence of the importance of ethical leadership roles as a set of behaviours
contributing to reduction of the level of relation conflict and increasing the level of
group cohesion and employee affective commitment to an organisation. The originality
of this study‟s contribution is to integrate leadership theories (charismatic and ethical
leadership) with social identity (team identity and leader prototypicality) to examine
both independent and interactive effects with the aim of predicting leaders‟
effectiveness. Evidence from the current study will indicate that social identity (leader
prototypicality and team identity) has a moderating impact on these relationships. These
results expand on existing literature in this field by revealing that charismatic and
ethical leadership and social identity (leader prototypicality and team identity) are
contingently, rather than independently, related to leadership effectiveness.
Finally, one of the most important contributions of the present study was that it showed
no significant relationship between one subscale of charismatic leadership,
unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness. Thus, the study demonstrates that
charismatic leadership (i.e. CKS excluding unconventional behaviour) is related to
leader effectiveness indicators (low relation conflict, high group cohesion and high
affective commitment). According to Conger and Kanungo, unconventional behaviour
is one aspect of the final stage of charismatic leadership. It might be hypothesised that
only leaders who have completed all three stages successfully, with the exception of one
7
aspect of stage three (unconventional behaviour) produced high leader effectiveness. In
contrast, leaders who are trapped in the first and second stage may have not yet have
demonstrated charismatic leadership behaviours that are necessary to attract their
followers to achieve a desirable behaviour and attitude. Additionally this study provides
empirical evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as important as the remaining
five charismatic leadership behaviour criteria (KCS) at the team level. Rowold and
Laukamp (2009) argued that a leader at the first-level is more concerned with daily
tasks rather than with creating a long-term vision of the future.
B. Practical Level
For many organisations, leader charisma, ethical conduct and social identity are
becoming increasingly important. Gaining a better understanding of the ways in which
leaders affect their followers will offer employers insight into policies and programs
necessary for training leaders and employees in a way that encourages charismatic and
ethical behaviours, while preventing unethical behaviours from becoming prevalent in
the culturally diverse workplace.
1.6. Structure of the Study
To achieve the research objectives this study is divided into seven chapters as shown in
Figure (1.1)
Chapter one: This chapter introduces the study, highlighting the research background
and motivation, giving a statement of the research aims and objectives, identifying the
contribution of the research at the theoretical and practical level and the organisation of
the thesis.
Chapter Two: Saudi Arabia and SABIC profile: This chapter provides an essential
profile about Saudi Arabia that enables the reader to comprehend interrelated issues that
will be discussed subsequently in the remainder of this thesis. This includes addressing
the basic information related to this research regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and SABIC in three parts. Part one includes a general overview of the country. Part two
describes Saudi business culture. Part three provides an overview of the private sector in
Saudi Arabia, including SABIC‟s mission and vision, and its global operations.
8
Chapters Three: Literature review: This chapter considers relevant literature from
several fields of study; at the beginning it reviews cultural diversity as the research
context. After that it discusses in depth the two leadership styles (charismatic and
ethical leadership). The final part of the literature review addresses social identity
theory as important for understanding employees‟ behaviour in relation to multicultural
organisations.
Chapter Four: Research methodology: This chapter introduces the research
methodology for the study, data sampling and collection technique, data reporting and
analysis procedures.
Chapter Five: Data analysis: In this chapter the results of the data analysis are
presented. The data was collected and then processed in response to the objectives
posed in chapter one.
Chapter Six: Discussion: Provides a comprehensive discussion and analysis of the
results and findings of the quantitative data in light of the literature review.
Chapters Seven: Conclusion: Addresses the main findings of the research. It draws
conclusions based on the findings presented in chapters five and six. This chapter states
the contributions and the limitations of the study, and provides some recommendations
that may contribute to the successful implementation of leadership behaviour in
companies with multicultural employees. Figure (1.1) depicts the thesis framework.
9
Figure (1.1): The Thesis Frame Work
Produced for the purpose of this research
To summarise; this chapter introduced the research introduction, rational and
motivation, aim, objectives and contributions and finally the organisation of the study.
The following chapter reviews the Saudi Arabia and SABIC profile as research context.
10
CHAPTER TWO: SAUDI ARABIA AND SAUDI BASIC
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PROFILE
2.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to provide essential background to the research context, by describing
the current business in Saudi Arabia and profiling (SABIC). To achieve this aim, this
chapter commences with an overview of the country‟s location and provides a snapshot
of the main characteristics of Saudi culture and management and leadership. The next
section discusses the nature of the business culture in Saudi Arabia drawing on
Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions. Then the Saudi economic environment is described to
provide more understanding of the situation for SABIC, in order to give the reader a
better understanding of its vision and mission. The conclusion will position all this
information specifically within the framework of the current study.
2.2. The Saudi Arabian Business and Management Context
Saudi Arabia is located in the Middle East between the Arab Gulf and the Red Sea. It
borders Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait to the north, Yemen to the south, and Oman, the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar to the east. The country, which is divided into
13 provinces, is composed primarily of desert. Each region has a governor appointed by
the King. With a land area of about 1.96 million square kilometres (756,981 square
miles), Saudi Arabia is about one-quarter the size of the continental United States.
Riyadh, the capital, is located in the central eastern part of the country. Saudi Arabia‟s
population is currently estimated to exceed 25 million, with about 33% of inhabitants
younger than 15 years old. The population is characterised by a rapid growth rate of
3.4% annually. Crucially for our study, over five million foreigners also reside in Saudi
Arabia for work (Hain, 2011).
Saudi culture is predicated on two main principles: firstly religion, and secondly the
traditional nomadic tribal system. The country‟s religious identity is heightened by the
country‟s status as home to the two Mosques at the centre of the Islamic world. The
influence of Islam extends to definition of social manners, traditions, obligations and
the practices of society in Saudi Arabia. Key characteristics of this tradition, in terms of
relevance to the business community are the strong emphasis afforded to respecting the
11
elderly, protecting face, pursuing a virtuous path, and demonstrating humility,
forgiveness, compassion, courage and obedience (Mellahi, 2001). The role of kinship
and the family have a major role in the work place, and this is derived principally from
the tribal systems that still determine the Saudi individual‟s position in society. The
tribe to which one belongs can be a pivotal factor in success or failure in the work place
(al-Shehry, 2006).
The role of Islam as the first tenet of Saudi culture is largely established based on the
Qur‟an (the holy book) and the Sunna (the sayings and practices of the prophet
Mohammed, peace be upon him) (Aldraehim, et al., 2012). These two sources unify the
Islamic world and Saudis through Sharia law, which affects both the morality and
practice of employees in the work place. It is of significance to this research, and to
those working in the country from other cultures, that morality in all areas of life is
derived from religious observance (Hofstede, 1998).
The role played by tribal and religious traditions also heightens the value of family in
Saudi society, and the status and support of the family affects everyone, from the most
highly educated to the least educated people in the country. In Arabic, Muslim
societies, self-interest is always secondary to the interests of the family (Kabasakal,
2002) as is emphasised in both the Qur'an and the Sunna. At all times an individual is
required to sustain good relationships with their relatives, extending to the provision of
assistance and generosity as required. This culture of interdependence extends into the
workplace, where it relies on the sustainability of the wider network of relationships
that offer security to individuals by connecting them to the group to which they belong,
rather than through individualism and privacy.
As described above in reference to tribalism and religion it is evident that Arab culture
forms the basis of Saudi culture and as such understanding of this culture by previous
researchers suggests there is likely to be resistance to change in the workplace (Straub,
2001). Patai (1973) identified Arab characteristics as being fatalism, mind versus heart,
open versus closed, and vertical versus horizontal. In fatalistic cultures of this type
expectations and perceptions are largely contingent on external factors (Welsh and
Raven, 2004). Hill (1998) identifies Arab culture as valuing home and traditional
12
influence over the adoption of new technologies. Straub (2001) examined Arab societies
in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the Sudan and observed that in the work
setting individuals and companies routinely negotiate issues with adapting technology
within their own cultural contexts. As a consequence the presence of cultural conflicts
between the western management style and that of Arab business leaders and workers
has resulted in the largely unsuccessful application of computers and modern
technology.
Saudi society is unique in the manner of the segregation of the sexes, in line with a
combination of Nomadic traditions and Islam. In Saudi Arabia there are limitations
placed on interaction between the sexes which has resulted in male domination of the
public sphere and female domination of the domestic sphere. In the work place women
are largely found in the fields of education and healthcare as separate facilities are
available for males and females (Ahmad, 2011). SABIC, the subject of this study, is an
all male company; as such the context if presents is markedly different from the
contexts of comparative companies in the west. Despite the apparent uniqueness of such
a context it is the norm for Saudi Arabia and to some extent is a situation mirrored in
other Arabic countries. As a consequence of this fact there will be no possibility to
include female research participants in this work as they are not present at SABIC.
The extent to which the characteristics of the Saudi Arabian workforce are derived from
tradition and which are derived from the country‟s nomadic past are not especially
relevant to this research. It is a complex task to determine which attitudes and
behaviours have a religious doctrine supporting them, and which a cultural one,
although it is true that the majority of the tribal and family values that prevail in Saudi
Arabia descend directly from its Islamic heritage (Mellahi, 2001).
Management and Leadership in Saudi Arabia
As discussed above Islamic laws (Sharia) and associated morals and values influence
the behaviour and practices of managers in Saudi Arabia. The three key areas in which
this is evident are policies relating to the employment of women, the management style
of leaders and the practices pursued within HRM departments (Hammoudeh, 2012).
Despite the unique and interesting context, according to Dorfman and House (2004)
13
„Studies in leadership in middle east are almost nonexistent due to the inherent
difficulty of conducting organisational research there‟(p. 64). This dearth of research
highlights the importance of this work.
As with the other cultures in which similar research has been more often conducted, in
the Arab world there is a clear demarcation between the roles and treatment of managers
and their subordinates. This clear division is what is commonly referred to as
representing a high level of power distance. The culture of respect affords particular
privilege to individuals according to age, status and family background. As the culture
has a strong family structure, Arab managers are commonly perceived to have the
position of fathers relative to their subordinates. Managers believe there is a subjective
element to organisational problems and as a consequence feel confident about taking
further and decisive action in response to them (Al-Omari, 2003). In support of the roles
assigned to managers and their subordinates it is also the case that Middle Eastern
employees prefer a greater amount of supervision than those from other cultures. This
reflects a collective attitude as well as a concern for avoiding losing face, and an
acceptance of a non egalitarian, confrontational and more direct management style
(Cerimagic, 2010).
In Saudi Arabia the role of the manager is extensive as clients expect that a senior
individual will be involved in communications with them. Indeed, it is often common
practice for companies to employ two managers for posts involving external
communication: an internal manager to oversee the project and an external manager
responsible for establishing a connection with the client (Abbas, 2008). Saudi Arabia is
a hierarchical society, as describe; this means that everyone is assigned a specific and
clearly delineated role so as to maintain the status quo (kwintessential.co.uk). As a
consequence of their position, according to Cavanagh (2011).Saudi Arabian managers
often work in an authoritarian manner, being rule-bound, resistant to innovation, and
also frequently discriminating between those member of the organisation that they
consider to be in-group and out-group. Such behaviour reflects a desire to make the
„right‟ connections and to secure one‟s own preferential position within the
organisation.
As mentioned above there is something of a family structure in place in the work place
14
setting in Saudi Arabia with researchers acknowledging that in Saudi culture leaders are
expected to act in a “paternalistic” way towards those employees they identify as from
in-groups, or those who are their own relatives (Kabasakal, 2002, Malshe, et al., 2012).
Malshe, el al. (2012) undertook a study that indicated that a combination of a
paternalistic approach and high power distance top managers are widely involved in the
day-to-day running of Saudi organisations. These top leaders play a pivotal role in the
decision-making practices at the firms in which they work.
The paternalism of Arab leaders is not a new phenomenon; historically in western
cultures a structure in which managers took on the role of “pater,” or “father” Was
common until the latter part of the twentieth century. More recently however such a
structure has been increasingly less common, as it is largely seen in the west to
leadership a style “restricting the freedoms and responsibilities of subordinates or
dependants in what is considered or claimed to be their best interests” (OED, 2009). A
leader who takes on the role of father is assuming that they know what is best for their
employees, much as a father may decide he knows what it best for his children. This
form of power responds to a deeply rooted experience in the psychology of most adults
and acceptance of a leader as a parent is a prevalent phenomenon (Pellegrini and
Scandura, 2008, p. 568). In Saudi Arabia where corporate life is an extension of family
life the emphasis of such a relationship on obedience and respect is deemed to be
appropriate. However, as was noted formerly in Western organisations, a paternalistic
structure is not without disadvantages; in particular it can be responsible for crippling
employees‟ initiative. Creativity in a paternalistic framework requires direction and as
such is limited by the vision of the manager overseeing the task
(worldbusinessculture.com).
A further characteristic that has been identified as a cultural factor affecting Saudi-
Arabian managers is an aversion to innovation and risk; this is linked to a fear of failure
and thus, loss of face (Alnimir, 1981). This attitude is also characterised by the limited
delegation of responsibility, which places greater reliance upon those in authority,
further affecting their willingness to make potentially risky decisions (Ali and Swiercs,
1986). The possibility that this is to some extent a stereotype, not borne out in reality is
suggested by some researchers who point to a preference for consultation and employee
participation amongst Saudi-Arabian managers.
15
A feature of the Saudi Arabian way of conducting business that has serious implications
for expats working in Saudi companies is the emphasis on personal referrals as a means
of deciding who to employ and/or promote. Success in business is partly dependent on
nepotism and family background and this can limit the equality given to western
employees, who have to learn to be patient. Expats in managerial positions need to be
aware of the relationships at play when communicating with local employees. Ideally
communication between managers and employees takes place in private, with all third
parties excluded. The relationships between individuals are privileged over what is
happening in the work place and the significance of this in the Saudi work force has not
so far been thoroughly investigated (Abbas, 2008).
The issue of the extent to which the employees available are suited to the skills required
for certain jobs is of great significance to this study, as it affects the employment of
individuals who are nationals of countries other than Saudi (Mellahi, 2001). There is a
desire to resolve this, identified by Albawardy‟s study (2010), in which he emphasises
the importance most Saudi organisations place on pursuing an approach based on
training and development. He argued that, the majority of Saudi organisations combine
the HRD role with one emphasising individual performance (trainee satisfaction,
employee capability, operational issues and formal training programmes) and not with
one emphasising organisational strategy. Albawardy (2010) concludes that training is
intended to ensure functional efficiency rather than to address strategic contributions at
the organisational level.
As identified by Chaar (2010), there is a shortage of leaders within the private sector in
Saudi Arabia. This situation has arisen because of the country‟s large young
population, which has create an imbalance between potential for growth and available
talent at the upper levels; the effect of this situation is rising unemployment figures
affecting the less experienced portion of the population, and a lack of people to take on
leadership roles affecting industry. Chaar (2010) expects that the situation will become
more extreme over the next five years as an additional 2.5 million young and
inexperienced individuals are set to enter the workforce.
From the perspective of this research we can see gaps in the existing studies that touch
16
on this field. Two key limitations are readily identified: first, studies to date have drawn
on the perceptions of leaders rather than their subordinates, so there is no triangulation
of the data collected to assure researchers that managers own observations of their role
are supported in the eyes of their subordinates; second, existing studies do not account
for the variation in leadership styles that doubtless exist across the diverse organisations
within the country. Where some Saudi-Arabian managers may be characterised as
generally risk averse and likely to avoid change, this does not mean that all Saudi-
Arabian managers can be categorised as cautious and reactive (Drummond and Al-
Anazi, 1997).
2.3. Business Culture in Saudi Arabia
Cultural differences create challenges for multinational companies doing business in
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia formally joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in
December 2005. The WTO system requires governments to adopt policies that provide
foreign products with due process, political participation and rights to information based
on trade and policymaking (Aaronson and Abouharb, 2011). The most important reform
efforts include privatising parts of the dominant state sector and improving the foreign
direct investment climate, which in turn may increases cultural diversity in the work
environment.
Leading cultural diversity in the workplace plays a very significant role in
accomplishing successes in a business relationship (Hofstede, 2009). Cultural diversity
considerations may impact positively by facilitating communication between employees
and business partners but they may also be a source of conflict rather than of synergy
(Rivera-Vazques, Ortiz-Fournier and Flores, 2009).
According to French (2010), the majority of researchers examine culture through a
variety of dimensions that reflect the values of individuals, as well as institutional
effects. Several cultural dimensions were emphasised by French (2010), however, the
most often employed cultural dimensions are those developed by Hofstede.
Hofstede‟s study focused on the necessity to see, evaluate and understand cultures using
17
a multi-dimensional approach (Matsumoto, 2000). The most common framework
discussed business culture in Saudi Arabia adopted cross-cultural dimensions derived
from Hofstede‟s (1984; 2001; 2009) work. Hofstede‟s framework focuses on four
dimensions, which represent elements of a common structure applied within the cultural
system of specific countries and based on the differences between so-called small and
large power distance cultures, small and large uncertainty avoidance cultures,
individualist and collectivist cultures, and masculinised and feminised cultures. Later, a
fifth dimension, Confucian dynamism was added (Hofstede, 2001). Each dimension was
measured by calculating a score indicating its strength level; scores ranged from zero, as
the lowest, to 120 as the highest. The higher the score, the more that dimension is
exhibited in society. These dimensions differentiated one culture from another and form
the basis of attitudes and behaviours, organisational practices, and social practices
including marriage practices and religious ceremonies (Hofstede, 2010).
Even though Hofstede presents a useful model for understanding variations in national
cultures (Remmé, 2008), there have been criticisms made concerning this model.
Primarily, that Hofstede‟s study was founded on data collected mainly from male
employees at one organisation (IBM). Thus, it may not be generalisable to other
organisations or countries (McSweeney, 2002).
Moreover, Myers and Tan, emphasised that Hofstede‟s study should not be interpreted
as an accurate description of national culture as a whole; rather, it should be seen as
indicating similarities and differences that one might expect to find amongst employees
in organisations in different countries (Myers and Tan, 2002). Researchers have
expressed concern regarding the survey instrument used in Hofstede‟s research and the
validity of the measure has been questioned (e.g. Triandis, 1993; Hunt, 1981;
Goodstein, 1981; Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Researchers have questioned whether
the country scores provided are representative of the normal population and whether
important cultural variables are in fact being measured.
In defending his sampling methods, Hofstede emphasises that IBM was used to satisfy
the principle requirement in cross-cultural surveys for functional equivalence, pointing
18
out that the measures focus upon the differences between the samples rather than on
absolute numbers.
In spite of these concerns, from a practical point of view, the cultural variables
described by Hofstede's model are appealing because of their apparent relationship to
the management process (Erumban and De Jong, 2006; Kankanhalli, Tan, Wei and
Homes, 2004). Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions and model have been applied in 72
countries worldwide (Hofstede 2009)
Hofstede (2009) argues that there are differences between Middle East countries (such
as Saudi Arabia) and Western countries (such as the USA and UK). The following
sections describe the Hofstede dimensions reported for Saudi Arabia.
2.3.1. Power Distance Index (PDI)
According to the analyses conducted, Saudi Arabian culture is characterised by large
power distance. The power distance dimension shows the degree to which unequal
distribution of wealth and power is accepted (Jone, 2007). Power distance is one of the
most important characteristics of Arab countries. Such societies are more likely to
follow a caste system, a system that does not allow for the large upward mobility of its
citizens. Thus, Saudi Arabia has long been a highly rule-oriented country. While in
Saudi Arabia an expatriate should be aware of the fact that he/she has to express
disagreements and doubts to executives carefully.
According to Hofstede (2009), cultural differences in reference to PDI are related to
individual differences in employee behaviour that have consequences for their work.
Regarding social interaction, this then is minimal between managers and subordinates in
high PDI cultures, and negotiation over work assignments is atypical in such settings
(Tosi and Greckhamer, 2004). In contrast, managers in low power distance cultures tend
to empower their employees, which leads to positive effects on employee performance
(Baruch and Hall, 2004). Accordingly, in a diverse workplace these cultural differences
may create significant challenges for managers in the private sector in Saudi Arabia.
19
2.3.2. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
Saudi Arabia is a country with relatively high uncertainty avoidance. Often this is a
cause for frustration amongst western managers as Arabs tend to avoid risk. They seem
to believe that when an opportunity is lost they can remain safe without “losing face”.
As a consequence they prefer to avoid problems and often simply choose not to face
them at all. They tend to ignore problems until it is too late, hoping that they might
successfully avoid facing them (Cerimagic, 2010). Such a high level of uncertainty
avoidance also implies a negative attitude towards change and innovation. They prefer
to retain the status quo and every precursor to change has to be carefully analysed and
all the risks have to be identified and assessed before it is considered for
implementation (kwintessential.co.uk).
Hofstede‟s analysis shows that Saudi Arabia has a low level of tolerance to uncertainty.
This implies that people are risk averse and that they do not like to make decisions if
something unknown is presented to them (International Business Wiki, 2012). People
also choose to obey strict rules and regulations. Society is unwilling to accept quick
changes (International Business Cultures website, 2012). Whilst working in Saudi
Arabia expatriates should therefore strive to back up issues they raise with statistics and
facts. The ultimate goal of managers in Saudi Arabia is to control everything in order to
eliminate or avoid unexpected developments. As a result of this characteristic of high
uncertainty avoidance, managers do not readily accept change and are typically
therefore very risk averse (Dima, et al., 2010).
2.3.3. Masculinity Index (MAS)
According to Hofstede: “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles
are clearly distinct” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 82-3). Saudi Arabia is a masculine country.
This does not mean that the dominant gender in the Saudi Arabia is male, rather that
masculine character traits are preferred over female characteristics. In Saudi Arabia
such traits as authority, success and performance dominate. Masculine countries are
ambitious and employees tend to also emphasise their work to great level (Jone, 2007).
Hofstede (2009) argues that these countries are likely to experience a high degree of
gender differentiation of roles, with masculinity playing a significant role in society
20
within the existing power structure. The female population in the society is becoming
more assertive and competitive, moving towards a male role model and away from the
female one. Such analysis suggests that women in the Arab World are somewhat limited
in their social rights; this may be due more to the prevalent religious beliefs rather than
to the culture (Hofstede, 2009).
2.3.4. Individualism-Collectivism Index (ICI)
In reference to the Individualism dimension, that introduces the preference to work in a
group or alone, Saudi Arabia is clearly shown to be a collectivist society. The work
group is considered to be akin to a family. Harmony and loyalty within the company are
highly desirable. Expats in Saudi Arabia have to try to work more in the group setting,
asking for advice and helping others. They have to respect all traditions and if they want
to implement any changes, they have to introduce these slowly (Mindtools website,
2012). Expats should also aim to exhibit trust and to show respect for age.
The differences within ICI between countries and cultures were found to be associated
with concrete differences in worker attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviour in relation to
their work and the organisations for which they work. For example, people in
individualistic cultures place more importance on freedom and challenges in their jobs,
with initiative usually encouraged; this is in contrast to those from a collectivistic
culture. People in collective cultures such as Saudi Arabia expect members of their
particular in-group to take care of one another; offering protection and security in
exchange for loyalty.
2.3.5. Short-Term -Long-Term Orientation
According to Hofstede‟s analysis, Saudi Arabia is a long-term oriented country. Recent
articles have provided some evidence of Saudi Arabia‟s ranking in regards to LTO. The
article “Long-Versus Short-Term Orientation: New Perspectives” scores Saudi Arabia
at 36, as based on a World Values Survey (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010).
Gorrill (2007) mentions that cultural concerns affecting the Saudi Arabian business
context include the need to schedule meetings outwith “the five daily prayer times and
religious holidays of Ramadan and Hajj”.
21
In summary, based on Hofstede‟s analysis Saudi Arabia is broadly similar to other Arab
countries; with the Muslim faith playing a large role in people‟s lives. The large power
distance and uncertainty avoidance that are predominant characteristics in this region,
lead to the expectation that leaders will separate themselves from the group, establishing
authority by issuing complete and specific directives, exercising ultimate power and
reinforcing control as required without recourse to democracy. The third highest
Hofstede dimension was (MAS) and the lowest was individualism (IDV), in line with
the remainder of the Arab world, offering a contrast to other developed countries such
as the USA and UK. Bjerke and Al-Meer, 1993; Budhwar and Debrah, 2001) claim that
in Saudi culture, Islam becomes combined with Arab traditions to produce a distinctive
mixture as revealed in this evaluation of Saudi mentality and behaviour.
2.4. Saudi Private Sector
The private sector includes those economic activities that are not performed by
government owned organisations. The importance of the private sector can be ascribed
to its increased contribution to gross domestic product (GDP). GDP refers to the market
value of the goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It is often
considered an indicator of a country's standard of living (Rispoli and Leung, 2011).
Saudi Arabia‟s economy is petroleum-based, with the country owning about one quarter
of the world‟s oil reserves. The KSA is in the process of utilising the oil incomes from
its national-owned projects to fund the creation of a modern economy that engages in
international trade, finance and manufacturing. There are more Saudis employed by the
government than by the private sector. However, the country imports a great number of
employees from other nations; its private foreign workforce comprises approximately
60% of all workers (Hain, 2011).
In 2002, the Council of Ministers approved the type of activities and services targeted
for privatisation. Large state–owned corporations, generally monopolise and dominate
the Saudi economy. These firms include oil firms, for example, Saudi ARAMCO and
the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) (Ministry of Commerce, 2004). The
following section presents brief information about (SABIC) as a significant player in
the world‟s petrochemical market, with expanded operations both at home and abroad
22
(Ramady, 2010).
2.5. Overview of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation profile
SABIC is a global company that is a fast-growing petrochemicals and steel producer.
SABIC, headquartered in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), is one of the world's top 6
petrochemical companies and it is the largest non-oil company in the Middle East.
SABIC was established by royal Decree No. M/66 dated 7th
September 1976, as a joint
stock corporation under the authority of the Ministry of Industry and Electricity, with
SR 10.00 million ($2.937) million as capital, divided into ten (10) million shares
(SABIC Report, 2010).
The Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is one of the world‟s leading
manufacturers of fertilizers, plastics, chemicals and metals, and SABIC is
manufacturing tens of related products and supplies these products to other companies,
who use them to make key global products. SABIC is the largest and most reliably
profitable public company in the Middle East with sound investor relations. This
success is the result of its focus on three things: investment in local partnerships,
emphasising the best research and technology programs, and its ambitious global
growth strategy (SABIC Report, 2010).
SABIC has produced several products that are consumed locally and exported
throughout the entire world; therefore it is committed to good practices throughout its
offices in the, Middle East, Asia, Africa, America and Europe (Balkhi and Foul, 2009).
SABIC's growth was initially based on manufacturing joint ventures in Saudi Arabia
with Western and Japanese partners including ExxonMobil, Shell, and the Mitsubishi
Corp. Joint ventures are not acquisitions or mergers, rather they are mutually agreed
arrangements designed to achieve something specific by combining technological
capabilities, human resources and other individual strengths. In the competitive global
marketplace, even very large companies sometimes need to collaborate with other
businesses (Al-Morished, 2004) to maximise their potential for success. These plants
continue to benefit from attractively priced feedstock, mainly ethane, and as a result
SABIC‟s partners have over the years generated high levels of profitability via their
23
participation in the joint ventures. SABIC has been increasingly striking out on its own
in the basic chemical markets but, as part of a previously announced diversification
strategy, which continues to seek partnerships allied with technology providers that
have market expertise in downstream sectors (www.chemweek.com and Al-Morished,
2004).
The company's recent agreement to build a methyl methacrylate and polymethyl
methacrylate complex in Saudi Arabia with Mitsubishi Rayon is an example of this
policy. SABIC's long-term vision focuses on further profitable and sustainable growth,
based on a doubling of sales to $60 billion/ year by 2020 (www.chemweek.com). The
company, as a part of this strategy, has made major investments at home, acquired
businesses in Europe and the U.S., and invested in China; it is now in the process of
diversifying its portfolio. SABIC's diversification plans include its intended entry into
the polyurethanes (PU), nylon, and rubber and elastomer businesses
(www.chemweek.com and SABIC Report, 2011).
The company is examining additional investment opportunities, including cooperation
in selected projects with the state-owned energy firm Saudi Aramco. Major overseas
investments have included the 2002 acquisition of DSM's petrochemicals business and
the purchase of Huntsman's U.K. petrochemical assets in 2006 (www.chemweek.com).
These two acquisitions extended SABIC's reach into Europe through ownership of
manufacturing assets at Geleen in the Netherlands; Gelsenkirchen in Germany; and
Wilton, in the U.K. SABIC's third, and by far largest overseas acquisition, was the
$11.6-billion takeover of GE Plastics, since renamed SABIC Innovative Plastics, in
2007. This deal transformed SABIC into a leading producer of engineering plastics.
SABIC also ranks among the world's leading producers of polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (FP), glycols, methanol, and fertilizers. Its major domestic
manufacturing sites are at Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. SABIC currently comprises
six strategic business units (SBU): chemicals, engineering plastics, fertilizers, metals,
performance chemicals, and polymers. Performance chemicals, the youngest SBU, are
the main driver of SABIC's diversification strategy. It plans to introduce more than 40
new performance products over the coming years, and by 2020 these are expected to
account for almost 10% of SABIC's revenues. The search for performance chemicals
SBU is headed by Jacobus Van Haasteren, who says that the task is a unique
24
opportunity: "Creating growth from where we are today to that goal in 2020 is a
challenging and interesting task" (www.chemweek.com and SABIC Report, 2011).
2.5.1. SABIC Vision and Mission
According to SABIC report 2010 the vision and mission of SABIC as following:
SABIC Vision: To be the preferred world leader in chemicals.
SABIC Mission: To responsibly provide quality products and services through
innovation, learning and operational excellence while sustaining maximum value for
stakeholders
2.5.2. SABIC Rankings Among the World’s Top Petrochemical Companies
(SABIC Report, 2010):
No. 1 in the world in the production of: Mono-ethylene Glycol, MTBE,
Granular Urea, Polyphenylene and Polyether imide
• No. 2 in Methanol and Polycarbonate
• No. 3 in Polyethylene, Polybutylene Teraphtalate, Engineering plastics
and their compounds
No. 4 in Polypropylene and Polyolefins
2.5.3. Strategic Business Divisions and Products (SABIC Report, 2010).
Chemicals: The chemicals SABIC makes come in four basic groups: Olefins and
gases, such as ethylene, propylene, butadiene, butane-1 and industrial gases like
nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. SABIC‟s vision is to become the world‟s preferred
leader in chemicals by 2020.
Polymers and caustic soda in a wide range of industrial applications including
paper and textile production. Glycols are used in polyester fabrics and packaging
materials, and oxygenates are used as solvents and to improve fuel efficiency.
Over the next few years, SABIC plans to introduce over 30 new value added
polymers. By 2020, it is anticipated that products like these will account for
around 10 percent of all SABIC revenues.
25
Innovative Plastics: including grades incorporating open and closed loop
recycled materials.
Performance chemicals: business production line intended to manufacture a
range of specialty chemicals such as ethoxylates, ethanolamines. Over the next
few years, SABIC plans to introduce over 30 new value added performance
chemicals. By 2020, products like these are expected to account for around 10
percent of all SABIC revenues.
Fertilizers: SABIC is one of the leading global fertilizer producers with over
6.7 million tons per annum of gross production capacity. Fertilizers such as
urea, ammonia, and phosphate, from SABIC three affiliates: Saudi Arabian
fertilizers Company (SAfCO), the Al-Jubail fertilizer Company (Al-BAyROnI)
and national Chemical fertilizer Company (IBn Al-BAyTAR).
Metals: include flat steel and long steel. Saudi Iron and Steel Company
(HADEED), and participation with the Board of Directors of the Gulf
Aluminium Rolling Mill Company (GARMCO) and in Aluminium Bahrain
(ALBA), to manage SABIC‟s interests in both the companies, which are based
in Bahrain..
2.5.4. SABIC Human Resources
One of the major goals in creating SABIC was the further development of Saudi
manpower. The first generation of SABIC's Saudi personnel received on-the-job
training from joint ventures in industrial management, technical operation and
administrative skills. SABIC considered human resources as the biggest single
challenge and the most difficult faced in the early stages of its operations due to the
shortage of a skilled Saudi national work force. In order meet the challenge of
developing a national work force capable of taking over management and technical
positions in the future, SABIC initiated programmes for the development of human
resources aimed at fulfilling this aspiration. In addition to its concern for customers,
SABIC demonstrated a solid commitment to the development of its growing numbers of
employees (Bourland, 2002).
SABIC currently employs more than 33,000 people working in more than 100 countries
26
on six continents. At the Saudi Arabian sites (where the research was conducted), the
proportion of Saudis is 85% of the total workforce (14 450 out of 17 000 employees)
most of these are engineers and skilled technicians. Saudi nationals hold 99% of the
leadership positions (e.g. board level) in SABIC and its subsidiaries, comprise 79% of
the staff working in administrative jobs, 77% of those working in technical fields, 63%
of engineers, 72% of workers in information technology, 78% of workers in the finance
and 100% of field safety workers, whereas the percentage of Saudi nationals in
management posts is unknown.
<http://www.sabic.com/corporate/ar/ourcommitments/people/default.aspx 23 September
2011>. Those foreign workers employed by SABIC, come from different countries,
including the USA, the UK, Asia and elsewhere in the Middle East {see chapter four
part (4.23.) employees background information}. It is likely that with full Saudi Arabian
membership of the WTO private sectors in Saudi Arabia there will be a need to apply
leadership skills to manage the increasingly diverse environment.
2.5.5. SABIC Global Operations
SABIC has subsidiaries in four regions: the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East and Africa. SABIC is now composed of six strategic business units (SBUs),
organised by product (SABIC Report, 2010).
2.6. Summary
This chapter has reviewed the current working environment in Saudi Arabia according
to Hofstede‟s criteria and has profiled SABIC profile, because it is the research context.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that Saudi management and
leadership are influenced by many traditional social-cultural factors that push them
towards establishing the significance of the centralisation of authority. The next chapter
reviews the literature affecting some of the research into relevant areas such as culture
diversity and its challenges in the workplace, leadership behaviour theories, and social
identity theory. This review focuses on the main leadership styles recommended
throughout the literature for handling the cultural diversity in the workplace.
27
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1. Introduction
The previous chapter presented a review of Saudi Arabia and provided a profile of
SABIC, to detail the research context. The key points noted were that people in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia place a high value on power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity, low individualism and short- term-orientation. However this research aims
to examine the role of leadership behaviours when leading a culturally diverse
workplace as the Saudi people are not the only employees of SABIC and team leaders
are also required to manage people from different backgrounds. Thus, this chapter
reviews the literature from a different perspective, considering leadership behaviour
theories (charismatic and ethical) as an important asset for all multicultural
organisations. It focuses on how such theories can be applied to create a sustainable
shared understanding that has a positive effect on the performance of the organisation
and raises team efficiency and effective communication amongst co-workers. The aim
of this being to facilitate the progress of a potentially strong team culture, which in turn
will provide the organisation with the opportunity to promote a competitive advantage.
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature from numerous fields of study
associated with essential issues resulting from cultural diverse environments, leadership
theories and social identity theory. It will address the following topics: defining culture
and cultural diversity, the benefits of cultural diversity in the workplace, challenges to
cultural diversity in the workplace, leadership theory (charismatic and ethical
leadership) and hypotheses development based on these theories. The chapter ends by
discussing social identity theory and the development of hypotheses based on this
theory.
3.2. Cultural Diversity as Research Context
One of the key issues facing corporations in this century is the importance of raising the
topic of cultural diversity. According to Lavaty and Kleiner (2001), cultural diversity is
an essential topic for discussion in the 21st century. They stated that during the 21
st
century, cultural diversity is one of the critical trends which have a significant impact on
28
the workgroup. Gröschl and Doherty (2006) stated that the increase in cultural diversity
in the workforce is due to demographic changes in the population. This increasingly
diverse workgroup affects human resource strategies. Therefore, understanding and
managing cultural diversity is important for the successful evolution of a modern
organisation. There is evidence that many countries‟ workforces are gradually becoming
more diverse. For instance, the percentage of multicultural groups in the USA had
reached 28% of the population by 2005 and the ratio will have increased to 50 per cent
by 2050 (Wright and Note, 1996; Fleury, 1999). Canada is another multi-cultural
country, where the percentage of diverse workgroups in 1995 was 10% of the working
population, a number likely to double by 2015 (Demers, 2002). This rapid increase in
culturally diverse workforces has spread to affect Western Europe, Russia, Latin
America, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Iran and the Arab Gulf countries
(Lenartowicz and Johnson, 2002; Atiyyah, 1996). For example, the Saudi Arabian
workforce is culturally diverse; according to the Saudi Ministry of Labour there were
approximately seven million foreigners in the kingdom in 2003, making up a little less
than one-third of the kingdom's total population of 23 million.
Increasing globalisation requires that there is more interaction between co-workers from
diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds than ever before. People no longer live and
work in a limited marketplace; they are currently regarded as part of the international
economy with competition emerging from almost every continent. Therefore,
organisations are required to take diversity seriously so as to become more innovative
and open to change (Lee and Nathan, 2010); for this reason, the question of how best to
take advantage of workplace diversity has become a significant concern for leaders.
Leading a culturally diverse workforce is an imperative and an organisational challenge.
Thus, leaders need to acquire the managerial skills and behaviours necessary to manage
a multicultural work environment effectively (van Woerkom and de Reuver, 2009;
Muethel and Hoegl, 2010). Leaders are required to be prepared to educate themselves,
and their followers within their organisations, to value multicultural differences in both
their co-workers and customers, so that each individual is treated with dignity
(Mendenhall, 2008 and Mazur, 2010).
29
The following section provides relevant definitions of what constitutes culture and
cultural diversity.
3.2.1. Cultural Diversity Definition
Before examining the theme of cultural diversity in an organisation, it is beneficial to
identify what culture means. For example, the following definitions represent a broad
cross-section of the diverse factors that have been proposed to encapsulate this concept:
“Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinct achievement of human groups.
Including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on
the other as conditioning elements of future action” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn,
1952:181).
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner define culture as “Social interaction, or meaningful
communication, pre-supposes common ways of processing information among the
people interacting.” Another definition of culture by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) is
“the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or
category of people from another.” (P: 282).
Culture, “has something to do with sharing or consensus among the member of a group.
The most obvious aspect of such sharing is the common language and conceptual
categories that are discovered wherever are studies a social group that has had any kind
of history and shared experience” (Schein, 2011: 312).
For the purpose of this study, and based on the three definitions discussed above,
culture refers to the values and beliefs held during group interaction that influence
behaviours and attitudes affecting the establishment of a shared culture.
30
Whereas the concept of cultural diversity is used in a variety of ways and can refer
fundamentally to many different issues. According to Gröschl and Doherty (1999), a
diverse workforce consists principally of people who look different and have different
life experiences. Although diversity has often been understood as the gender and racial
makeup of a company‟s workforce, it goes beyond this narrow range to include
additional factors such as age, cultural background, education, national origin, religion
physical appearance and economic status. These are just some of the many
characteristics that define us as individuals and employees. However, there is no basic
definition of „culture diversity‟ due to the complexity of the concept (Golde, 2005).
However, cultural diversity from the perspective of Harrison, Price and Bell (1998)
suggests two dimensions of heterogeneity; surface level and deep level. Surface level or
“demographic characteristics” include race, sex, age and marital status. They view these
features as permanent, almost visible and easy to measure and validate. Conversely, the
deep level “psychological characteristics” include: personality, values, attitudes and
beliefs. As maintained by Harrison et al. (2002) it can be difficult to observe these
features, unless groups do not interact well with one another. Harrison et al. (1998)
argue that through mutual interaction, demographic diversity studies become less
significant than psychological diversity.
Harrison et al. (1998, 2002) have explored the degree of the different consequences of
heterogeneity in surface and deep-level forms among the work groups of hospital and
grocery store staff. The researchers have examined team consistency as a key outcome.
They found that superficial differences were less important and deeply rooted
differences were more important for groups that had interacted more frequently. In other
words, as work groups spend more time together, as the length of time spent together
grows the effects of surface-level diversity are weakened and the effects of deep-level
diversity as group members are strengthened as the opportunity is available for them to
emerge during meaningful interactions. This result is consistent with Tyran and
Gibson‟s study (2008); they investigated two different populations and found that
surface level differences were less important than deep-rooted differences when groups
interacted frequently.
31
In the light of the discussions above, and on the basis of the importance of deep-level
“psychological characteristics”, this study will focus on these as important dimensions
of heterogeneity in the case of cultural diversity. The fact that this study is conducted in
Saudi Arabia where the vast majority of the people share similar beliefs, values and
norms, does not detract from its relevance. Globalisation is transforming the labour
market in Saudi Arabia from that of single-nation diversity to multi-national diversity,
altering the character of the cultural workplace.
The next sections discuss the potential benefits and challenges that arise as a result of
this cultural diversity.
3.2.2 The Benefit of Culture Diversity in the Workplace
Many business leaders are now starting to consider that diversity has important bottom-
line benefits. Diversity in the workforce can lead to competitive advantage because
different viewpoints can facilitate unique and creative approaches to problem-solving;
thereby increasing creativity and innovation, which in turn leads to better organisational
performance (Allen, Dawson, Wheatley and White, 2004).
Roberson and Park (2007) maintain that a multicultural workforce results in excellence,
achieved by attracting and retaining the best talent. This helps reduce costs associated
with turnover, absenteeism and low productivity. A multicultural company can
penetrate and widen its markets with knowledge of political, social, legal, economic and
cultural environment.
Both researchers and practitioners have argued that changes to the demographics of the
workforce can influence team performance, so enhancing organisational efficiency and
effectiveness (Jackson, May and Whitney, 1995; Lawrence, 1997; Snow, Snell and
Hambrich, 1996). Companies use multicultural teams to expand globally and to
accomplish the potential for cross-cultural markets in order to achieve the necessary
32
flexibility, responsiveness and improved resource utilisation to meet the continuous
demands of a global business context (Mowshowitz, 1997; Snow et al., 1996). Scholars
investigating cultural diversity highlight that firms with highly diverse teams often
produce ideas of higher quality when exploration skills are required (Wolfe, 2010; Scull
et al., 2010). Additionally, Amaram (2007) stated that the capabilities of identifying
problems and generating solutions in culturally diverse teams are greater than those for
homogeneous teams. For example a study of the U.S. Forestry Service suggests the
advantages of running a culturally diverse organisation when involved in the
development and management of natural resource policies. It concluded that the
creation of a diverse mix of employees was not only more reflective of the diverse
public which the Forest Service, but also resulted in better land management decisions,
as they were more responsive to the desires and needs of the populations being served
(Brown and Harris, 1993).
Canen and Canen (2002) stress that it is evident that a multicultural team that shares
expectations will facilitate communication and team productivity. Stahl et al. (2010)
concluded in their meta analysis of research on multicultural work groups, cultural
diversity leads to process losses through task conflict and decreased social integration,
but to process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction. Scholars have argued
that creativity comes from new ideas, multiple perspectives, and the different problem-
solving styles that members bring to the team (Adler, 2002 and Stahl, et al., 2010).
Considering that workforce diversity has dramatically increased, Ragins and Gonzalez
(2003) acknowledge that having cultural diversity may be a key requirement for
sustained competitive advantage, due to increased creativity and innovation (Bassett-
Jones, 2005; Richard, 2000). This is regarded as one of the main missions of SABIC.
However, the benefits of cultural diversity are in essence derived from the same source
as the attendant challenges; different perspectives on how a task can be successfully
executed can embody either creativity or conflict, depending on the work environment.
Scholars in the field of cultural diversity have asserted that managing it is a key issue
for effective people management, because it has the potential to result in extremely high
productivity and competitive benefit (e.g. Roberge and van Dick, 2010, Alon, et al.,
2011 and Gakahu, 2011). In contrast, cultural diversity in the workplace that is managed
33
ineffectively might obstruct the accomplishment of organisational goals. Therefore
diversity can be perceived as a “double-edged sword” (Mazur, 2010).
3.2.3. Cultural Diversity Challenges in the Workplace
Cultural diversity in all arenas can result in relationship conflicts, problems with group
cohesion and lack of affective commitment. In the case of organisations this can have a
negative impact on their success in terms of effectiveness and productivity. Many
studies suggest that cultural diversity is potentially likely to affect team outcomes
negatively, influencing team relationships and overall member satisfaction (De Dreu
and Weingart, 2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009; Clark, 2011). This is because value conflicts
in general suggest that there is no common ground through which to communicate. In
this study leader effectiveness concerns dealing with cultural diversity challenges
effectively by reducing group conflict and promote group cohesion and affective
organisational commitment. The following section discusses the challenges posed by
cultural diversity in more detail.
3.2.3.1. Relationship Conflict
Conflict arises when two or more individuals or groups have differing opinions on or
disagree in a particular situation. Conflict is generally viewed as an intervening variable
between situational and individual antecedents and group outcomes, such as
productivity (Gladstein, 1984; Peng and Tjosvold, 2011). Korsgaard and Mahony
(2008) define conflict generally as something that occurs between parties when they are
incapable of communicating well, or when there is dissimilarity in their goals or
inspirations.
Conflict is often increased when cultural differences are present, however it is not
always accurate to assume that conflict is a negative (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Manniz,
2001). It can be beneficial where it leads to a resolution or where the conflict results in
promoting new ideas. Tóth and Zieger (2009) observed that in multi-cultural
organisations where people of different nationalities are expected to work cooperatively,
disputes are generally based on differences unrelated to the language barrier. People
from different countries have varying attitudes in regards to everything from normal
daily work practices to high-level decision-making practices, and therefore potential for
34
conflict is present in such environments.
Given its importance, scholars have focused extensive efforts on understanding and
resolving conflict (Brehmer, 1976; Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Tekleab, et al., 2009;
Peng and Tjosvold, 2011). One outcome of this work is that researchers now view
conflict as having two related, yet distinct dimensions; one being task-related
disagreement (task conflict), and the other interpersonal disagreement among members
(relationship conflict) (Pinkley, 1990; Priem and Price,1991; Jehn, 1995; De Dreu and
Weingart, 2003; Simons and Peterson, 2000).
According to Jehn (1995, p. 258); “disagreements among group members about the
content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and
opinions” are representative of task based conflict. Whereas, relationship conflict refers
to “interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, which typically include
tension, animosity, and annoyance among members within a group” (Jehn, 1995, p.
258). In the work setting in which teams are expected to work together these two
varieties of conflict operate distinctively to affect team growth, processes and outcomes
(Simons and Peterson, 2000; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Ayoko, et. al., 2008).
Team outcomes have been shown by scholars to exhibit positive characteristics in
response to conflict. For example, task conflict has been found to encourage greater
understanding of issues that may lead to more innovation, re-evaluation of requirements
and improved engagement in tasks (Simons and Peterson, 2000; Alper, Tjosvold and
Law, 1998; Jehn, 1997). Other studies have shown that groups become more cohesive
and committed in terms of performance when the levels of conflict associated with a
particular task are heightened (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). These results are rationalised
by the fact that controversy prompts debate among group members and so enriches the
quality of decision making in the group (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Previous
research has explored some of these affirmations with regards to task conflict. Putnam
(1994) illustrated that task conflicts facilitate people‟s identity and improve
understanding of the problems involved, and Baron (1991) presented confirmation of
the hypothesis that task conflicts within parties embolden people to generate new ideas
35
and methods. Additional research has investigated the impact of task conflict on entire
group‟s performance. In a longitudinal study, Fiol (1994) confirmed that when group
members receive a different explanation of task subject matter, the group‟s knowledge
and the accuracy of any evaluation of the situation was enhanced. Schwenk and
Valacich (1994) explained that evaluating and articulating the situation provided higher
quality decisions in work groups because members faced problems instead of avoiding
them, making them appear less serious. Recent research has revealed small correlations
between task conflict and job satisfaction (e.g., De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Curşeu
and Schruijer 2010).
Conversely, relationship conflict describes incompatibilities within a team that are
unrelated to the work itself (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). These can result from personal
friction that may have various causes, such as frustration, and personality clashes (Ross,
1989) based on individual differences of opinion, preferences, style, and personality (De
Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001). Unlike task related conflict relationship conflict has a
uniformly negative impact on productivity, coherence and satisfaction within teams
(Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003;
Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010).
Thus, relationship, or interpersonal, conflict is generally judged to hinder effective
group functioning while task, or substantive, conflict is thought to promote effective
group work (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994, 1995, 1999; Jehn and Mannix, 2001 De Dreu
and Weingart, 2003; Curşeu and Schruijer 2010). According to Jehn, (1995)
relationship conflict is more harmful to the psychological well-being of group members
than task conflict because it entails a strong affective backlash, such as that derived
from emotional tension and hostility. Therefore, this study focuses on relationship
conflict as an in depth challenge resulting from cultural differences; examining the role
played by leadership styles in reducing this kind of conflict.
Most empirical research in this field has focused on collective differences in surface
level “demographic”, function and values. Generally, the findings have established a
number of effects in relation to intergroup conflict that are similar to the presumed
36
negative results from more culturally diverse groups. These arguments are based largely
on examination of the impact of diversity on conflict when focusing on demographic
values and diversity; as stated above the results from the majority of research generally
indicate that diversity is associated with greater conflict (van Knippenberg and
Schippers, 2007). For instance, gender, age and race diversity are typically related to
higher levels of relation conflict (Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Pelled et al., 1999;
Vodosek, 2007). Additionally, diversity in functional background, knowledge bases and
educational background is positively related to task conflict (Jehn, 1997, 1999; Mooney
et al., 2007; Olson, Parayitam and Bao, 2007; Pelled et al., 1999). Diversity in terms of
value systems is also problematic, leading to both task and relationship conflict (Jehn et
al. 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Vodosek, 2007).
Overall, scholars investigating the field of cultural diversity have emphasised that it is
positively related to relation conflict (Nibler and Harris, 2003, Vodosek, 2007). Relation
conflict that result in disputes in multicultural teams are often rooted in deep-level
differences, which makes them difficult for leaders to identify, address and resolve
(Boone and Hendriks, 2009).
Accordingly, and in support of what has been discussed above, researchers have stated
that diversity in values, attitudes and beliefs is a potential source of negativity and
relationship conflict, leading to lower performance (Jehn, 1997; Weisner, 2009; Curşeu
and Schruijer, 2010). Their studies show that cultural diversity can be confidently be
related to relationship and task conflict. Deep-level differences, in opposition to surface-
level differences were stated by Harrison, Price, Gavin and Florey (2002) to become
greater over time as a result of team interactions. Thus the effect of diversity on task and
relationship conflict may be mitigated or exacerbated by other factors. For example,
Jehn and Mannix (2001) found no relationship between values diversity and task and
relationship conflict during the initial weeks of a group‟s life; however, during the
middle stages deep-level diversity was associated with greater relationship conflict.
Pelled et al., (1999) found that the effects of surface-level diversity diminished over the
life of the group. For this reason this study examines relation conflict in the context of
deep-level diversity rather than in a surface-level context.
Therefore, the reason for highlighting relationship conflict in this study is because, on
37
the one hand, it is an important predictor of frustration and negative emotion and on the
other hand, it is a predictor of numerous organisational outcomes such as performance
turnover, absenteeism and team cohesion (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; De Dreu and
Weingart, 2003; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This may be because of different
interpersonal incompatibilities or simply annoyance between group members (Weisner,
2009; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This is especially relevant to the study of multi-
national groups where cultural differences often result in a lack of cohesion among
group members (Sánchez and Yurrebaso, 2009).
Although scholars regard conflict and cohesion as drawn from same nomological
network (cf. Cronbach and Meehl, 1955), it is essential to refer to the major differences
between these terms in relation to conflict regarded as a team process; whereas cohesion
is regarded as a team enhancing state (Marks et al., 2001). With regards to the
relationship between conflict and team cohesion, existing theory draws the leader‟s
attention to the importance of managing the conflict stages in developing team cohesion
over time (Change, Bordia and Duck, 2003). Most scholars agree that relationship
conflict negatively influences team cohesion. They argue that it is likely that
relationship conflict takes place early in a team‟s life and may lead subsequently to a
negative impact on team cohesion (Carnevale and Probst, 1998; De Dreu and Weingart,
2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009). Therefore, the next section will discuss team cohesion as
another cultural diversity challenge in the workplace.
3.2.3.2. Group Cohesion
Cohesion has been regarded as the most important determiner of success in small
groups (Carron and Brawley, 2000). Throughout the literature, many authors have
attempted to define this concept and a variety of opinions on the subject have emerged.
For instance, the earliest definitions were those given by Festinger (1950) who defined
cohesion as “all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group” (p. 274).
Whereas Shaw (1981) described cohesiveness as the degree to which members like each
other and desire to remain a part of the group. Langfred (1998) suggested a definition of
cohesion as “the extent to which group members feel a part of the group and their desire
to remain in the group” (p.127). Other definitions have included attraction to a group
and its member‟s mutually positive attitudes (Lott and Lott, 1965), attraction to the
group (Cartwright, 1968; Evans and Jarvis, 1986). “Group connectedness” (Budman et
38
al., 1993, p.202) and “a basic bond or uniting force” (Piper, Marrache, Lacroix,
Richardsen and Jones, 1983, p.93). Whereas Carron (1982) defined cohesion as “a
dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and
remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” (p.124). Keyton (1999)
observes, “Cohesiveness has been described as an attitude or feeling members have
about their groups, its task, or other members” (p.207).
Leana (1985) discussed „attraction to the group‟ as a positive force affecting cohesion in
contrast with the results derived when groups are composed of randomly appointed
individuals. Johnson (1997) conceptualised attraction as a type of cohesion, saying
group cohesion, “may be defined as the mutual attraction among members of a group
and the resulting desire to remain in the group” (p. 113). Trice and Beyer (1993) see
cohesion in a similar way to Leana (1985), suggesting that, “when groups are cohesive,
members are attracted to and come to like one another...” (p.177). For the purpose of
this study the author defines group cohesion as the attraction of team members to the
group and the desire to remain a part of the group.
Researchers in this field emphasise the importance of team cohesion at the individual
and team level. For example, a number of studies revealed that the cohesive nature of a
group generally has a positive effect on that group in general in terms of job satisfaction
and productivity, as well as on the individuals contributing to the group (McGrath,
1984; Carron, Colman, Wheeler and Stevens, 2002; Tekleab, et al., 2009). In their group
study O‟Reilly and Caldwell (1985) emphasised that establishing task norms for
cohesive groups is easier than for non cohesive groups. To achieve these affirmative
results, it is crucial to recognise the aspects that help organisations to increase group
cohesion. Researchers have identified a number of these aspects such as, level of
interaction, team size, nature of the task, level of conflict (Lott and Lott, 1965; Wright
and Drewery, 2006) and member‟s intentions to remain within the group (Tekleab, et
al., 2009). Identification with the group also plays an important role in the
consequences of cohesiveness (Hogg, 1992). Sánchez and Yurrebaso (2009) argued that
it is not the interaction itself that is crucial; rather it is „group culture‟, which includes
factors such as the content, meanings and topics of interaction that are based in shared
beliefs.
39
Scholars of diversity offer evidence that supports the view that greater group diversity
leads to lower levels of cohesion (Thomas et al., 1994; Harrison Price and Bell, 1998;
Alesina and Ferrara, 2000; Costa and Kahn, 2003; Putnam, 2003; van Knippenberg and
Schippers, 2007). Additionally, researchers have found that the more the work group
sees similarities at the deeper level (shared values, beliefs, and cultural customs) or on
the surface-level (such as, race, education, social class, gender and age), the more they
will be attracted to each other. Therefore, some groups of employees exhibit a higher
degree of group cohesion than others (Whyte, 1998; Boxx, Odom and Dunn, 1991;
Dunlop and Beauchamp, 2011).
In contrast to this view, Smith et al. (1994) found no relationship between diversity and
cohesion. Similar results were found by Webber and Donohue (2001) in their meta-
analysis, which demonstrated no consistent relationship between group diversity and
cohesion. In agreement with this argument were Wright and Drewery (2002), who
studied Asian, Pacific islands and Anglo students. They concluded that levels of socio-
emotional cohesion in diverse groups differs across cultures and may be connected to
differences in conflict perception and management in addition to other factors.
Researchers in this field have analysed these findings, and highlighted that the impacts
of diversity on cohesion may well vary according to the level of diversity (Milliken and
Martins, 1996; Dunlop and Beauchamp, 2011).
Collectively, these findings bring up an essential question concerning group attractions
to each other in the context of cultural diversity; to the author‟s knowledge, the
relationship between some leadership styles (charismatic and ethical leadership
behaviours) and group cohesion in work groups has not been addressed by previous
research.
40
The above review of group cohesion in a diversity environment literature provides
strong advances regarding the negative influence that the lack of group cohesion brings
to diverse workplaces. Therefore, group cohesion, will be one of the present study‟s
concerns. Additionally, Andrews and his co-authors (2008) confirmed empirically that
highly cohesive groups have often been related to affective commitment. On the other
hand, a number of studies confirmed that the absence of group cohesion may lead to
several non-beneficial organisational outcomes such as low employee performance
increase in turnover intention, absenteeism and team conflict (Colquitt, Noe, and
Jackson, 2002; Carron, Colman, Wheeler, and Stevens, 2002; Kozlowski and Bell,
2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009, Miles and Schaufeli, 2011). These negative outcomes may
be as a consequence of different interpersonal ineptness, or aggravation between team
members (Weisner, 2009; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This is particularly relevant to a
study of multi-national groups where cultural differences often result in a lack of
cohesion among group members (Webber and Donahue, 2001; Stahl, et al., 2010).
Scholars involved in team cohesion studies argued that the level of work involved in
achieving team cohesion may enhance affective commitment to the organisation.
Several studies revealed those followers who have experience of high levels of team
cohesion also have a greater feeling of affective commitment to the organisation (Wech,
et al., 1998; Kidwell, Mossholder and Bennett, 1997; Yoon, Baker and Ko, 1994,
Andrews, et al., 2008). Research suggests that the advantages of team cohesion expand
further than satisfaction with one‟s direct work group to attitudes towards the
organisation as a whole (Colquitt and Jackson, 2006). The following section will
discuss organisational commitment as a third challenge of cultural diversity.
3.2.3.3. Organisational Commitment
Leaders often alter their behaviours to influence and accomplish organisational goals
and employee commitment in an organisation is regarded as a key objective for
supervisors. Organisational commitment determines the level of acceptance and beliefs
in the organisation‟s goals and values, and examines the degree to which members have
a strong desire to retain loyalty to the organisation. Organisational members who are the
most committed to their organisation are the least likely to leave; which results in fewer
costs for the organisation in terms of recruiting and training. The literature reveals
organisational commitment as being a positive energy that binds an employee to his/her
41
organisation (Kuokkanen et al., 2003; Laschinger and Finegan, 2005; Lok, Westwood
and Crawford, 2005; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001; Tang, 2003; Tansky and Cohen,
2001). Employees are considered to be committed to their organisation if they show a
willingness to continue to be associated with that organisation and make great efforts
towards achieving organisational objectives (Laschinger and Finegan, 2005; Lok,
Westwood and Crawford, 2005; Mowday, 1998; Tansky and Cohen, 2001). Meyer and
Herscovitch (2001) found that employee commitment may be focused on numerous
targets at various levels of an organisation.
Buchanan (1974) defined organisational commitment as “a partisan, affective
attachment to the goals and values of the organisation, to one‟s role in relation to the
goals and values and to the organisation for its own sake, apart from its purely
instrumental worth” (p.533). Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) took
Buchanan‟s definition of organisational commitment one step further, seeing it as “the
strength of an individual‟s identification with and involved in a particular organisation
(p. 533) and Allen and Meyer describe three levels of organisational commitment thus:
1. Affective commitment- describes an employee who is emotionally committed to
the organisation and who stays with the organisation because they want to be
there.
2. Continuance Commitment – describes an employee whose commitment is
determined by weighing the costs of leaving the organisation. The employee
remains with the organisation due to an assessment of costs that are determined
to represent too great a risk.
3. Normative Commitment- describes an employee whose commitment is due
solely to feelings of obligation to remain with the organisation. (Allen and
Meyer, 1990, p.4)
Organisational members who have a high level of affective commitment are empirically
likely to experience higher job satisfaction (Chen, 2005). Employees who are
affectively committed to an organisation remain because they enjoy the membership
within the organisation, embrace leadership, are involved in the decision-making
process and have a strong belief and attachment to the goals of the organisation. The
higher the degree of affective commitment, the more the employee identifies themselves
42
as a member of that particular organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Organisational
members who have a high level of continuance and normative commitment often obtain
a low level of job satisfaction (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Employees who are
continuously committed to the organisation weigh the costs associated with leaving the
organisation and remain within the current organisation because the costs of leaving are
thought to be too high. Employees who are normatively committed to the organisation
remain with the organisation because they feel obligated through feelings of guilt to
remain with the organisation. Normative committed employees feel an internal pressure
to act in correct ways to meet organisational goals. Organisational members with
normative commitment believe that they are acting morally and ethically by staying
committed to the organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
Affective commitment has been shown in previous research to be an important
denotation of job satisfaction, turnover, transformational and charismatic leadership and
transactional leadership. For example, Bogler and Somech (2004) examined the
relationship between empowerment and affective commitment in middle and high
schools located in Northern and Central Israel. Professional growth, status, impact, self-
efficacy and decision making were all found to be positively related to affective
commitment. The greater the teachers‟ perceptions of themselves as participating and
practicing empowerment measurements, the higher they reported being affectively
committed to the organisation. In addition, professional growth, status and self-efficacy
were all found to be predictors of affective commitment. Teachers who felt that they
worked within a supportive environment, and who were recognised for their
contributions, and whose confidence was encouraged by management expressed a
higher degree of affective commitment.
Huselid and Day (1991) examined organisational commitment and its effect on turnover
among supervisors from a nationwide home products retailing firm, headquartered in
the Midwestern United States. They found that employees who scored higher on
continuous commitment were more likely to leave than those who scored lower. In
addition, those employees who scored higher on affective commitment were less likely
to leave the organisation. In this study affective commitment was recognised as the
strongest predictor of job satisfaction and low turnover. Leaders should continuously
43
assess and develop affective commitment among employees if they want to reduce
turnover and sustain high levels of job satisfaction.
From the discussion above it can be concluded that affective commitment has greater
leverage on employees‟ attitudes when it comes to impacting on employee leaving.
Affective commitment was expected to have the strongest positive effect on desirable
work behaviours (e.g. attendance, performance, organisational citizenship behaviour
and job satisfaction) (e.g. Lim, 2010; Carmeli, 2005; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and
Topolnytsky, 2002).
Despite the recognition of the multidimensional nature of the commitment construct, the
majority of empirical studies have continued to focus on affective commitment (Eby et
al., 1999). Leveson et al. (2009) argued that affective organisational commitment is the
form of commitment that is most likely to reflect employees‟ attitudes to the way their
organisation manages cultural diversity.
The discussion above confirmed empirically the important role of affective commitment
in influencing employee attitude and behaviour. Thus, this study will focus on affective
commitment as one of the study hypothesis outcomes.
This section has discussed the cultural diversity challenges in the work place such as
high level of relation conflict and low level of group cohesion and affective
commitment. The following section discusses a theoretical framework for the study.
3.3. Leadership and Social Identity Theories
The growth in cultural diversity in workplaces in Saudi Arabia, as discussed in the
previous section, results in challenges in terms of internal conflict, low cohesion and
low levels of affective organisational commitment. This in turn, creates a high demand
for new forms of leadership in multicultural organisations. The current study examines
the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership leader‟s effectiveness in
leading culturally diverse work places, and the moderating role of social identity in
these relationships. Thus, this study examines two leadership styles for leading
44
culturally diverse environments; these are charismatic and ethical leadership. It has been
argued that charismatic leadership has a powerful effect on followers and on
organisational culture (Conger and Kanungo, 1998; House et al., 2004). Consequently,
it is claimed that through adopting charismatic leadership, leaders can facilitate the
effectiveness of diverse teams by encouraging them to become more innovative,
reducing group conflict and assisting their members in accomplishing their
organisational goals effectively (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque and House, 2006; Elenkov
and Manev, 2009) but evidence is lacking.
In the context of diversity, a model of ethical leadership is proposed to deal with diverse
workplaces in terms of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, justice treatment and care.
Such leaders are not limited or influenced by negative attitudes, thoughts or feelings
towards foreign employees; such as discrimination, bias and stereotyping (e.g., Shore, et
al., 2009; van Dick, 2010; Podsiadlowski and Ward, 2010). Additionally, social
identity theory is suggested as a means of understanding how diversity affects team‟s
attitude and behaviours. As stated by Kriesberg (2003), dealing with conflicts requires
consideration from the social identity issues perspective.
The primary aim of this study is to specify the relationship between the main behaviours
that leaders in private sectors in Saudi Arabia need to become effective leaders in a
culturally diverse workplace and the moderator role for team‟s social identity in
reference to these relations. There is no doubt that the significance of successfully
enacting change is a critical issue that faces today‟s managers. With changes like these
comes the need for a more strategic form of leadership, these leadership styles are called
new leadership approaches (Bryman, 1992). The leader could be charismatic and
someone whom the follower trusts and whom they emotionally identify with
(Eisenbach, Walson and Pillai, 1999; Michaelis, et al., 2009). Types of exceptional
leadership, such as transformational, charismatic and visionary, are becoming more and
more critical to organisations, as workforces become more diverse, technology
improves and international competition increases. Leadership is an essential component
of the change management process, since change, requires both the formation of a new
system and the implementation of it.
45
The next section will review the different perspectives associated with charismatic
leadership theory behaviours; so as to consider what leaders actually do as opposed to
their underlying characteristics. A number of theories have been put forward to explore
leadership style in the context of organisational change such as transformational
leadership, charismatic and visionary leadership (House and Shamir, 1993).
3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership
Any discussion of charismatic leadership in organisations should begin with reference
to the work of German sociologist, Max Weber, who applied the term charismatic to
leaders in the secular world. His typology of three types of authority in society (the
traditional, the rational-legal and the charismatic) identified charismatic leadership as a
significant term with which to express forms of authority based on perceptions of
extraordinary individuals (Conger, 1988, 1993). Max Weber (1947) defined
charismatic authority as „resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or
exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order
revealed or ordained by him‟ (p. 215). He regards charisma as something attributed to a
leader by a set of followers, rather than an objective set of characters (House and
Shamir, 1993; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999).
In recent years, charismatic leadership has become a widely researched topic in
leadership literature (e.g. Levay, 2010; Wilderom and Berg, 2010; Varella, et al., 2011).
According to Bass (1985), the focus of charismatic leadership is on transforming the
beliefs, attitudes and values of followers to support the vision and goals of an
organisation by promoting an atmosphere in which relationships can be formed and by
establishing an environment of trust in which visions can be shared. House and a series
of colleagues (House and Howell, 1992; House and Shamir, 1993; House et al., 1991;
Shamir et al., 1993) introduced the concept of charismatic leadership, describing it as
not a set of specific behaviours but rather a process by which leaders and followers
elevate one another to higher levels of morality, motivation and performance. Bass
states that charismatic leaders are “charismatic actively shape and enlarge audiences
though their own energy, self-confidence, assertiveness, ambition and sexing of
opportunities” (1985: p. 34). Nadler and Tushman (1990) stated that transformational
and charismatic leaders can envision a better future, effectively communicate and get
46
others to make that future a reality. Contemporary, researchers have described
transformational and charismatic leadership as going beyond individual needs, such as
self actualisation and developing commitment and communication with their followers
(e.g. Waldman, et al., 2009; Sergiovanni, 1990; Chung, et al., 2011; Hobman, et al.,
2011). It can be seen that Weber‟s original conceptualisation has survived to the
presented to the present day.
Some scholars (e.g. Gardner and Avolio, 1998; House et al., 1991; Conger and
Kanungo, 1998) have argued that Weber concentrated principally on social patterns and
conditions under which the leader exists. However, the present research sheds light on
the psychological attributes of leaders which makes them successful and charismatic
leaders. Research demonstrates that charismatic leaders appeal strongly to the values of
their followers and that it is this psychological linked between the two which
encourages the success of charismatic leadership. Neither the sociologically oriented
Weberian approach nor the psychological approach alone can categorically define the
constituent parts of charismatic leaders. The styles together, however, give a superior
analysis of charismatic leadership.
It is expected that in culturally diverse work environments such as SABIC that a new
leader style for instance transformational and charismatic leaders will demonstrate the
necessary behaviour to communicate a set of mutually acceptable collective values that
can be managed to realise the visions of their organisations (House, et al., 1997; House,
et al., 2004; Kark and Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir and Chen, 2003; Lisak and Erez,
2009). The new leadership approach that put forward by transformational, charismatic,
visionary or inspirational leadership presents leaders that combine both their academic
knowledge and work experience that facilitates their dealing with complicated and
unstable organisational matters (Tichy and Devanna, 1990). This concept of charismatic
leadership seems to be comparable with Bass‟s theory. According to Bass (1985),
charisma is the emotional behaviour of leaders that function to express that “leaders
who by the power of their person have profound and extraordinary effects on their
followers” (p.35). This style of leadership has the ability to combine the skills of diverse
cultural groups of employees to obtain collective objectives. These kinds of
transformational and charismatic leaders provide followers with a vision and a positive
feeling of self-esteem and confidence, producing a culture of shared respect and
47
motivating absolute loyalty and admiration without regard for the self-interest of their
followers‟ (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Fairholm, 1994; van Knippenberg et al., 2004; De
Cremer, et al., 2006).
Others have argued that in culturally diverse settings leaders have the challenging
mission of retaining as much of their workers diversity as possible; this should enable
them to obtain the full advantages of that diversity. Thus, leaders should develop
conditions where all employees can be successful, this requires considerable effort to
shape these diverse values and norms into a new culture. Leaders in turn, require their
followers to trust each other and work together consistently according to the stated
values of their organisation. Therefore, these leaders must be effective as active
catalysts, individuals who have the knowledge and experience essential for directing
successful organisational effectiveness (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Fairholm 1994;
Schein, 1992; Tichy and Denanna, 1990; Dorfman et al., 2004; Fry and Kriger, 2009).
This study employs charismatic leadership theory since there is considerable evidence,
as discussed above, in support of charismatic leadership theories and the importance of
its behaviour in organisational settings as related to leader effectiveness (e.g. DeGroot,
Kiker and Cross, 2000; Fuller, Patterson, Hester and Stringer, 1996; Lisak, Erez, 2009).
Despite the growing body of evidence regarding the importance of charismatic
leadership, surprisingly, to the author‟s knowledge, investigations of charismatic leaders
and leader effectiveness in the context of cultural diversity is limited to a study by Lisak
and Erez (2009).
3.3.1.1 Charismatic and Transformational Leadership constructs
In order for charismatic leadership to be viewed as a valuable construct that has an
effect on the theories put forward by researchers and practitioners in organisations, it is
essential to explore its relationship with other relevant constructs. Specifically, it will be
important to distinguish charismatic leader types from transformational types.
Typically, the distinction between leadership constructs such as transformational and
charismatic leadership has been made on the basis of investigation of a set of skills, in
relation to the intentions of the leader.
48
The concept of transformational leadership was introduced into organisational literature
by Burns (1978). Transformational leaders provide their followers with a purpose or
sense of direction that transcends short-term goals and extrinsic needs. In contrast to
transactional leadership, in which leaders gain follower compliance through positive
reinforcement and directive action, transformational leadership focuses on ensuring
follower‟s identification with organisational goals and commitment to their leader‟s
vision. Scholars have hypothesised four dimensions of transformational leadership:
idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised
consideration (Bass, 1985). The following section will discuss the two most widely used
models for describing the qualities of transformational and charismatic leadership.
Bass Model
In the 1990s Bass developed an instrument to measure transformational leadership and
its components. The instrument, known as the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) is used to identify four distinct characteristics of transformational leaders, which
are referred to as the “4Is”.
Idealised influence or charisma: Transformational leaders ask their followers to
transcend their own self-interests to achieve a higher order vision for their group,
organisation or society (Bass; 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner,
2002). Bass (1998) asserted that transformational leaders build up a sense of confidence
and appreciation amongst their followers, which shapes the foundation for accepting
fundamental change in an organisation. Those leaders who use idealised influence are
honoured, appreciated and also trusted; their followers admire them, and they identify
themselves with their leaders and seek to imitate them. Such leaders are representative
role models for their followers (Bass, 1998).
Inspirational motivation: This consists of communicating a vision with the confidence
and enthusiasm necessary to encourage others. Through shared values and beliefs,
transformational leaders and their followers work toward a common goal (Bass, 1998;
Yukl, 2010). Beyond their shared values and beliefs, transformational leaders perform
in ways that inspire and motivate their followers (Bass, 1998). Their followers are
challenged to share their work with others in pursuit of an universal goal, and by so
49
doing they improve their own confidence by giving up their own control (Bass, 1998).
By giving up control, leaders make themselves more vulnerable to the consequences of
workers‟ failures. Management vulnerability engenders the trust generated by followers
(Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997).
Intellectual Stimulation: Leaders, who rationally stimulate their workers effort to be
creative and accept challenges as part of their job become involved in approaching old
situations in new ways and in reassessing their old values and beliefs, also stimulating
changes in the way they think about problems. This may result in the possibility of
obtaining new and creative ideas for solving problems (Bass, 1998). By openly
considering suggestions, a transformational leader generates an atmosphere that gives
meaning to the members‟ work, and increases feelings of excellence and self-esteem
(Tichy and Devanna, 1990).
Individualized consideration: A transformational leader must understand and recognise
all the contributions of followers individually (Yammarino and Dubinsky 1994).
Leaders provide resources to support their follower‟s successes, allowing them to take
responsibility and give feedback on their performance. Followers in this case appreciate
the confidence displayed in them by the leader, and are satisfied with the leader‟s ability
to mentor and help them succeed (Bass, 1985). Followers who are allowed to contribute
freely feel more involved in solutions (Daft, 2002) and feel a sense of community, being
a part of a community increases self-esteem (Tichy and Devanna, 1990). As
emphasised by Bass (1999) charisma, including one of the four dimensions of
transformational leaderships is idealised influence.
Conger-Kanungo Model
Conger and Kanungo (1987) defined charismatic leadership as an attribution phenomenon
and suggested a framework for examining the behaviours of charismatic leaders. They
demonstrated that a constellation of leader behaviours would lead to followers‟ attributing
them with having charisma. Charismatic behaviours involve introducing an idealised
vision discordant from the status quo, taking personal risks, engaging in self-sacrifice to
50
achieve the vision, using unconventional strategies, realistically assessing the
environment, articulating motivation to lead, engaging in exemplary behaviour, and
performing as representatives of fundamental change.
As part of their research programme on charismatic leadership, Conger and Kanungo
(1987, 1989) proposed a complementary theory of charismatic leadership theories.
Conger and Kanungo (1997) conveyed that the three studies conducted in the United
States, Canada and India confirmed their findings in a 1994 study. The outcomes of
these three separate studies revealed acceptable reliability and validity as analytic tools
in multicultural contexts. Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) research generated a model,
which presented three stages that distinguished charismatic leadership. Their research
favoured the idea that charismatic leaders are skilled at encouraging followers to
achieve superior goals, advanced performance and better satisfaction. Conger and
Kanungo‟s model for charismatic leadership addressed characteristics of leadership
behaviour that they believed were not addressed in pre-existing leadership literature.
The key features describe the leaders‟ responsibility in three main stages:
1. The critical assessment of the environment and status quo. During this stage
leaders identify the possibilities and opportunities in the environment as well
working to ensure their followers needs can be investigated;
2. The formulation and articulation of a future vision or the formulation of goals
for the follower; and
3. The building of trust and credibility in the minds of followers, which is crucial
to developing commitment to a vision. In particular, leaders engage in personal
risk, partly to inspire followers during role modelling, as well as to exhibit
unconventional behaviour. (Conger and Kanungo, 1998. P. 45). Figure (3-1)
summarises the stage model- and the six factors - of charismatic leadership.
These six factors of charismatic leadership are assessed according to the Conger
and Kanungo Scales (CKS) of charismatic leadership.
51
Foguer (3-1): Charismatic Leadership Stages of the Conger and Kanungo
Model
Produced for the purpose of this research
Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) model “builds on the idea that charismatic leadership is
an attribution based on follower‟s perceptions of their leader‟s behaviour” (p.47). These
Formulation of environmental opportunities into
a strategic vision
Effective articulation of an inspirational vision
that is highly discrepant from the status quo, yet
within latitude of acceptance
Leadership
Conveys goals
Demonstrates means to achieve
Motivates follower by personal example: Risk
taking/Countercultural empowering/Impression
management
Assessment of environmental resourced/constraint
and follower needs
Effective articulation
Realisation of deficiencies in status
Stage 2
Formulation and
Articulation of
Organisational Goals
Stage 3
Achieving the Vision
Stage 1 Evaluation of Status
Quo
52
theorists suppose that charisma is established through followers‟ perception and
reception of their leaders‟ actions and interaction. This model is based on the follower‟s
“attribution” of charisma; this describes what makes a leader a charismatic leader. One
of the factors that Conger and Kanungo have integrated into their evaluation of the
attribution of leadership included “the nature of articulation and impression
management” (1987, p. 640).
According to Conger and Kanungo, attribution of charisma depends on six key variables
including: (a) Sensitivity to environmental context; (b) Strategic vision and articulation;
(c) Sensitivity to member needs, precise evaluation of followers‟ needs; (d) Personal
risk, presenting confidence; (e) Unconventional behaviour; and (f) Does not maintain
the status quo. The following section will discuss these six variables in more detail.
Sensitivity to Environmental Context: Conger and Kanungo‟s sensitivity to
environment scale measures a leader‟s evaluation of the external and internal
environment with the intention of achieving organisational goals (Conger and Kanungo,
1998). In other words, a charismatic assessment of the organisation‟s status quo through
gathering information about environmental circumstances. Depending on a variety of
reliable sources, the leader is able to understand the market and engage in strategies for
change.
Strategic Vision and Articulation: The second scale, strategic vision and articulation.
This scale measures the leader‟s capability to formulate sensible strategic goals. In
theory, these goals must meet leaders and followers‟ needs, and any key objectives
defined by the organisation. Idealized goals from Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998)
perspective are goals that endorse radical changes to the status quo, the leader imprints
the most memorable impressions on followers. Thus, charismatic leaders must develop
a creative and innovative vision and a goal that is equally real and concrete (Snow,
Rochford, Worden, and Benford, 1986).
Sensitivity to Member Needs: The sensitivity to the member needs scale measures the
53
ability of leaders to demonstrate concern for members‟ needs and feelings; a crucial
aspect of this dimension is the leader‟s capability to recognise members‟ capacities and
skills. Furthermore, it measures the leader‟s expressions and personal understanding of
member‟s feelings (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
Personal Risk: The personal risk scale measures those leaders determined to chase the
organisational target, even if they include significant self-sacrifice and personal risk.
Particularly, charismatic leaders strive to illustrate that they have a complete
commitment to the cause they share with followers. These leaders build strong
perceptions that are highly responsible, which in turn strengthens follower commitment
(Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
Unconventional Behaviour: The unconventional behaviour scale measures leaders;
particularly, how far the leader is encouraged to pursue entrepreneurial and risky routes
and patterns of action to establish organisational objectives (Conger and Kanungo,
1998).
Does not Maintain the Status Quo: To achieve organisation goals and opportunities
leaders critically evaluate existing circumstances to identify the shortages or the
opportunities. Leader that exhibit this behaviour are often described as agents of change
(Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
3.3.1.2. Comparison of Bass’s Model and Conger and Kanungo’s Model
Below, the Conger and Kanungo model (1998) will be discussed in reference to Bass‟s
(1985) theories referring to transformational, charismatic leadership. The reason for
presenting this contrast is that the two models focus effectively on the impact of
phenomena related to leadership, and are frequently used interchangeably as a result of
their similarities.
Both Charismatic {Conger and Kanungo (C-K)} and transformational {the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)} models are typically placed in the same categories of
54
leadership, as those theorists describe as “the new Leadership School”, which is based
on the “Neo-Charismatic paradigm” (Bryman, 1992; Antonakis and House, 2002). Both
emphasise the essential distinction between leadership and management. Both
transformational and charismatic leaders are considered as agents of change. Both
theories base their examination of leadership on the same perspectives.
Bass, Conger and Kanungo perceive leadership as a set of role behaviours performed by
individuals. This means, leadership is both a relational and an attributable phenomenon.
In addition, their methodologies are connected to leadership effectiveness measurement.
While leaders‟ role behaviours are in the long-term intended to direct their followers‟
attitudes and behaviours, both agree that the effectiveness of leadership should be
measured with regard to “the degree to which a leader promotes instrumental attitudes
and behaviour that encourage the achievement of group objectives, follower‟s
satisfaction with the task and context within which they operate, and followers‟
acceptance of their leader‟s influence” (Conger and Kanungo,1998, p39), rather than be
measured regarding to the outcome of the process. Yet another striking similarity
between the theories proposed by Bass (1985) and Conger and Kanungo (1998) is that
they highlight the fact that charisma is a major factor in transformational leadership.
Meanwhile, there clearly exists a sizeable overlap between the dimensions of
charismatic leadership and transformational leadership, however, several important
differences are evident. The main disagreement relates to charisma. Although Bass
(1985) views charisma as a key component of transformational functions, Conger and
Kanungo (1998) assume that charisma and charismatic leadership is the most
exceptional construct that transformational leaders have. Specifically, for Bass,
charisma is simply a characteristic “charisma is a necessary ingredient of
transformational leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to account for the
transformational process” (Bass, 1985, P.31). On the other hand, Conger and Kanungo
assumed that charisma is more than a characteristic and that is indeed the highest
leadership construct (1998); thus it is regarded as necessary.
Regarding the methodological aspects, additional differences between the Bass and
55
Conger and Kanungo models, Bass (1985) assesses transformational leadership based
on employee‟s evaluations. Namely, Bass‟s Leadership Behaviour Description
questionnaire (LBDQ) and (MLQ) are both based on evaluations of leader‟s
subordinates (Bass and Avolio, 1989). From Conger and Kanungo‟s view point, this is
inadequate because some researchers have revealed that there is tendency for followers
to categorise those features that reflect a prototypical leader, rather than their actual
leader (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Conger and Kanungo (1998) conclude that Bass‟s
measurements blur the distinction between both measures, in other words, the
measurements merge leader behaviours with followers‟ measurement of effects.
Furthermore, though Bass‟s scale items the follower effects of charisma, Conger and
Kanungo‟s scale reflects the leader‟s charismatic behaviours.
Conger and Kanungo attempt to overcome some of Bass‟s limitations in terms of
contextual observations. For instance, they integrate the observation of contextual
variables and situational distinctions, which were not assessed accurately in Bass‟s
model. Moreover, Bass regards charisma as a feature of leadership; he deals differently
with some of Conger and Kanungo‟s elements of charismatic leadership. For example,
Bass treats vision as a component of inspiration, rather than as a component of
charismatic leadership.
Another difference between both approaches relates to commitment and motivation.
Bass (1985) believes that subordinates can be motivated adequately by their leader‟s
vision and objectives. On the contrary, Conger and Kanungo (1998) suppose that the
commitment and motivation that subordinates exhibit for charismatic leaders is not as
simple as identified in Bass‟ construct. As an alternative, they regard the personal
approval of a charismatic leader to be the principal measure of a follower‟s self-
efficacy (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
The Conger and Kanungo model (1998) differentiates from Bass‟s (1985) in terms of
behavioural components. In this respect, Conger and Kanungo argue that Bass‟s model
fails to evaluate the status quo as a significant behaviour of leadership during the first
stage of charismatic leadership. They emphasise instead, the importance of
56
environmental sensitivity in moving towards the vision and articulation stage.
However, and depending upon their study, Rowold and Heinitz (2007) estimated that
the both constructs (MLQ and CKS) have only a 22% variance between them. Rowold
and Heinitz argue that although this result supports the idea that charismatic and
transformational leadership are to a great degree overlapping concepts, the remaining
22% variance indicates that each approach has unique elements.
Despite the similarity between the Conger and Kanungo‟s approach, and some
behaviour identified by other leadership theories -transformational and visionary- (e.g.
House, 1977; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), Conger and Kanungo (1987) describe some
conduct that makes their approach distinctive, namely, unconventional behaviour,; for
example, personal risk taking and striving to change the status quo.
3.3.1.3. Prior Studies Build on Conger and Kanungo’s Work.
Since Conger and Kanungo‟s published their work on charismatic leadership, many
theoretical works and empirical studies have sought to utilise their charismatic
leadership theory to validate and explain the phenomena presented in the model,
applying it in various organisational contexts. Such organisations include the public and
voluntary sectors, specific industries, medical organisations, military organisations. The
interest of the most studies that seek to apply (C-K scale) relates to its impact on
organisational outcomes; i.e. organisational strength (Larsson and Ronnmark, 1996),
employee perceptions of crisis and collectivist cultural orientations (Pillai and Meindl,
1998), rapidly changing and crisis in organisation (Valle, 1999) employees‟
empowerment (Lashley, 2000), subjective performance (e.i. profit) (Rowold and
Heinitz, 2007), followers' absenteeism (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009), organisational
commitment components (Rowden, 2000 and Shastri and colleagues, 2010), emotional
intelligence (Côté and colleagues, 2010) and followers‟ job performance and job
satisfaction (Lian, et al., 2011). The following table (3-1) summarises researchers‟
efforts to build on Conger and Kanungo‟s work.
57
Table (3.1) Summary of prior studies based on Conger and Kanungo‟s work
Author(s) The study aim (s)
Methodology
Sample Findings Research
approach
Research
strategy
Larsson and
Ronnmark
(1996)
Examines the relationship
between charismatic leadership
(Conger and Kanungo model) and
organisations strength (leader and
follower, leader and
organisational context, and
follower and organisational
context).
Quantitative Questionnaires
(Case study)
Workers in
voluntary
organisation in
Sweden
Larsson and Ronmark concluded that charismatic
leadership has been seen as having a positive effect in
enhancing an organisations‟ strength.
Pillai and
Meindl
(1998)
Explores how individuals might
contribute to this emergence such
as perceptions of crisis, how
groups‟ identification might
contribute to this emergence, and
how organisational structure
might contribute to this
emergence.
Quantitative Questionnaires Data was collected
from 596 managers
and subordinates
from a large
government health
service agency in
the southern United
States.
The findings indicated that there is negative
correlation between charismatic leadership and
employee perceptions of crisis. Additionally, there
are positive correlations between charismatic
leadership and organic structure and collectivist
cultural orientations.
58
Author(s) The study aim (s)
Methodology
Sample Findings Research
approach
Research
strategy
Valle (1999) Use the C-K scale to recognise
the importance of charismatic
leader roles and behaviours in
rapidly changing and crisis in
public organisations.
Quantitative Questionnaires Public
organisations
Concluded that in diverse and fragmented
organisations challenges are created (rapidly
changing and crisis led) that could be addressed
easily by a charismatic leader
Ramm and
Pliskin
(1999)
To determine whether charismatic
leadership was used in e-mail
functioning, whether all of the
behaviours that have been
described by Conger and
Kanungo exist in a university
leader.
Triangulation Observations,
interviews,
questionnaires.
500 faculty
members in a
medium-sized
university.
Questionnaires, 22
interviews and
observations
Result revealed that not all the behaviours that have
been described by Conger and Kanungo exist in a
University leader.
Lashley
(2000)
This study examined employee
empowerment to identify the
degree of empowerment that
employees in fact attain by using
Conger and Kanungo‟s work.
Qualitative Semi-structured
interviews.
number of TGI
Friday‟s restaurants
The findings revealed that there is a relationship
between charismatic leadership and employees‟
empowerment.
Rowden
(2000)
Empirical study to measure the
relationship between the six
leadership behaviours identified
Quantitative Survey biased on
questionnaires
Total of 245
respondents from
six organisations in
The study reveals that five of the six C-K factors
were significantly correlated with the two
commitment factors. Whereas there was no
59
Author(s) The study aim (s)
Methodology
Sample Findings Research
approach
Research
strategy
by Conger and Kanungo and the
two organisational commitment
components.
South-Eastern
United States.
significant correlation between „does not maintain the
status quo‟ and „organisation commitment‟
Rowold and
Heinitz
(2007)
Empirical study aimed to clarify
the similarities and differences
between the two instruments
transformational (MLQ-5X), and
charismatic leadership (CKS).
Quantitative Survey biased on
questionnaires
public transport
company in
Germany
The study finding revealed that both transformational
and charismatic leadership increased the influence of
transactional leadership on subjective performance
(profit).
Rowold and
Laukamp
(2009)
The study tested the relationship
between charismatic leadership
and (followers‟ absenteeism, there
training and development
activities) and the profit level.
Quantitative Questionnaires
Sample of 320
employees, from
public services
company in
Germany,
Findings illustrate that charismatic leadership facets
correlated negatively to followers' absenteeism, on
the contrary correlated positively to their training and
development. Likewise, the results demonstrated that
charismatic leadership related positively to
profitability.
Jayakody
2008
Applying the questionnaire
developed and validated by
Quantitative Questionnaires
53 managers who
are reading for
The study outcomes revealed that there is similarity
between the Sri Lankan version of charismatic
60
Author(s) The study aim (s)
Methodology
Sample Findings Research
approach
Research
strategy
Conger and Kanungo in Sri
Lanka.
MBA degrees in Sri
Lankan business
organisations.
leadership and the Conger and Kanungo‟s model in
terms of personal risk, sensitivity to members‟ needs
and sensitivity to the environment. Conversely, the
Sri Lankan version does not enclose unconventional
behaviour and vision articulation. Additionally, the
findings showed that Sri Lankan version concludes
by adding excitement as a new dimension to add to
the C-K model.
Côté and
colleagues
(2010)
Examined whether the emotional
intelligence of team work related
to leadership emergence
throughout the duration of a
project.
Quantitative Questionnaire Participants were
138 undergraduate
students in a
commerce program
enrolled in an
organisational
behaviour course.
The finding supported their assumption that there is a
positive relationship between emotional intelligence
of team work and their perception of their leader
charismatic behaviour.
Shastri and
colleagues
(2010)
To identify the relationship
between charismatic leadership
and organisational commitment.
Quantitative Questionnaire The sample
consisted of 147
employees of
Indian
organisations.
The findings revealed that five of the six CK-factors
were significantly related with the commitment
factors. Whereas there was no significant correlation
between „does not maintain the status quo‟ and
„organisation commitment‟.
Lian, et al., The study assessed whether this Quantitative Questionnaire Two independent Results show that although the factor structure of
61
Author(s) The study aim (s)
Methodology
Sample Findings Research
approach
Research
strategy
(2011) conceptualisation of charismatic
leadership is generalisable to top-
level organisational leadership in
Chinese society, where culture is
tremendously different from that
in Western society
samples with full-
time employees
from Chinese
society
charismatic leadership is replicated, some behaviours
are not attributed as charismatic and are less effective
in the Chinese context. Results also demonstrate that
charismatic leadership is positively related to
followers‟ job performance and job satisfaction, and
such positive relations are partially mediated by
followers‟ identification leaders and their
organisations.
62
Based on the previous studies illustrated in the table above, despite the advances
detailed in the literature, a number of significant gaps still remain in terms of our
understanding of charismatic leadership. For example, there are no empirical studies
which can be applied to Conger and Kanungo‟s model of multinational organisations, to
examine their effects on certain work-related outcomes that have emerged from diverse
workplaces. For example, the levels of group relation conflict, the level of group
cohesion and the level of affective commitment to an organisation. More specifically, to
the author‟s knowledge, no empirical study has been conducted to date that relates to
the culturally diverse workplace and work related outcomes at the group level in Saudi
Arabia. Indeed, more than a decade ago, Conger and Kanungo (1998) called for more
concerted efforts to establish the validity of the C-K model as an important step in
future research. For instance, they suggested that some potential outcomes of
charismatic leadership behaviours will result in followers at the group level being
characterised as having a high degree of cohesion within their work group, low relation
conflict, high value similarity and high commitment to organisational goals. The current
investigation examined Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) theory, both because it has been
extensively investigated in deferent cultural settings such as the USA, Germany, Sri
Lanka and China, conceptualises charismatic leadership as a perceptual/attribution
phenomenon (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
Therefore, the present study aims to address this gap and expand the literature by
empirically testing the relationship between charismatic leadership, using the C-K scale
and some of the variables suggested above. Specifically, this study investigated the
relationship between Conger and Kanungo‟s Model and leader effectiveness (high
cohesion, low internal conflict, and high commitment to the organisation), and the
moderating impact of leader prototypicality and team identification in private
organisations in a culturally diverse context such as that in Saudi Arabia.
This section has offered a sequential glimpse at previous efforts to build on the C-K
model. The following section discusses the hypotheses that have been developed to
describe charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness.
63
3.3.1.4. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and Hypotheses
Development
Charismatic Leadership and Level of Cohesion
As discussed earlier, one of the main problems that leaders face in the culturally diverse
workplace is the potential lack of cohesion. Scholars in this field emphasised that
followers‟ behaviours can be influenced by their leaders (Bass, 1985; Schein, 1992;
Trice and Beyer, 1993) and in view of this influence, a leader‟s understanding of the
dynamics of the team they lead is an important consideration. One of the most important
methods for assisting leaders in understanding group dynamics is analysis of a group‟s
cohesive components. Thus, to encourage cohesion, leaders should increase their efforts
and take action to create a work environment that develops productive group
cohesiveness. There are several studies that confirm that leaders can produce cohesion.
Wendt et al. (2009) for instance, proposed that leader‟s behaviour is important for
promoting cohesion through assisting co-workers to come together as a group. Leaders
can enhance positive relationships between group members by “creating expectations in
members of newly formed groups that they will like each other and by helping a
member differentiate between not liking other member‟s behaviours and not liking the
other members themselves” (Stokes, 1983, p.171). Similarly, Budman et al. (1993)
asserted that, through self-disclosure leaders can achieve greater cohesion between
group members. Studies like these draw attention to the value of the leader‟s
contribution towards producing a cohesive group. Wang, Chou and Jiang (2005)
investigated the impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and
overall performance during enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation. There
study results found that charismatic leadership style significantly influences the level of
team cohesiveness, which, in turn, affects the overall projected team performance. This
result is consistent with Jiang et al. (2001), White (2000) and Zaccaro et al.‟s (2001)
findings, which revealed that leaders who exhibit more charismatic leadership
behaviours may encourage team cohesiveness.
Despite this, to the author‟s knowledge there is no study that has considered leadership
behaviours as a factor promoting cohesion in diverse work settings. The present work
aims to fill this gap and focuses on analysing to what extent leadership behaviours
contribute to strengthening the cohesion in culturally diverse teams. Therefore, the
64
author posits here that this effect of charismatic leadership styles on group cohesion will
also be valid in culturally diverse workplaces, where cohesion is even more vital than in
homogeneous team. This evidence produced:
Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour and the level of cohesion in culturally diverse workplaces.
Charismatic Leadership and Level of Conflict
With respect to the relationship between charismatic leadership and group relation
conflict, to the author‟s knowledge, very few empirical studies have been conducted to
date. Theoretically, and according to Bass et al. (2003), charismatic leaders are
considered to be important directors of teamwork processes, involved in overcoming
team conflict and promoting team cohesion. He argues that charismatic leadership is
regarded as a beneficial form of conflict (Bass, 1985, 1990). This idea is supported by a
study by Mohammed and Angell (2004). The study assumed that team processes
(leadership, coordination, communication) will normally moderate the relationship
between deep-level diversity and conflict. Its finding revealed that team processes,
which included leadership and coordination operations within a group, affected
relationship conflicts. Given these prior links between conflict, cohesion and
charismatic leadership, this study proposes the following:
Hypothesis 1b: There is a negative relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour and the level of conflict in culturally diverse workplaces.
Charismatic Leadership and Affective Commitment
Charismatic leaders strive to achieve a conjoining of the goals of their followers and the
goals of the organisations in which they work, thus aiming for increased commitment
towards their organisations. This type of commitment enables charismatic leaders to
maximise the positive output of multi-skilled workers in the organisation, with the
intention of generating the total effort of their workforce towards collective goals,
interests and values (Singh, et. al., 2008). According to Avolio (1999), transformational
and charismatic leaders can achieve employees‟ organisational commitment through
“encouraging followers to think critically by using novel approaches, involving
65
followers in decision-making processes, inspiring loyalty, while recognizing and
appreciating the different needs of each follower to develop his or her personal
potential.” (p.24). Accordingly, a specific leadership style can influence employees‟
organisational commitment. For example a study conducted by Rowden (2000)
examined the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and organisational
commitment. The results revealed a positive relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviours and organisational commitment for five of the six charismatic
leadership behaviours studied. The charismatic leadership behaviours that were
positively correlated with organisational commitment included vision and articulation,
sensitivity to members' needs environmental sensitivity, unconventional behaviour and
taking personal risks. This study revealed how some additional charismatic leadership
behaviours, that were components of charismatic leadership were positively related to
organisational commitment.
Given the intense feelings of emotional attachment it is proposed to foster, charismatic
leadership is likely to exhibit a strong positive relationship with affective commitment
(Bycio et al., 1995). In their study Bycio et al. (1995) found positive correlations
between charismatic leadership styles and organisational commitment. On the other
hand, they reported a lower positive normative commitment with charismatic
leadership. Their findings are consistent with Akroyd et al.‟s, (2007, 2009) and Chung,
et al.,‟s (2011) research findings which revealed that the charismatic leaders have a
significant effect on both affective and normative commitment. Hence employees who
perceive their leader to consistently demonstrate charismatic leadership skills and
behaviours were more likely to have higher levels of commitment to their work.
In a study by Chen et al. (2010), the relationship between transformational/charismatic
leadership, transactional leadership, organisational commitment and job satisfaction
were investigated; using participants selected from the IT department at the Department
of Research and Development at an Industrial Park in Shanghai, China. The results of
the study revealed that positive correlations exist between charismatic leadership and
affective and normative commitment. This suggests that commitment is based upon
wanting to be a contributing member of an organisation; actively participating as an
organisational member is related to having a leader whose focus is on inspiring and
66
motivating others and raising expectations.
Another study conducted by Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) revealed that
transformational and charismatic leaders are able to motivate their followers to become
more involved in their work and to show higher levels of affective organisational
commitment. The current study is different from the previous study by examining this
relationship in diverse workplace.
Based on the above discussion of how charismatic leadership should increase
commitment toward an organisation, the following proposition is offered:
Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour and the level of employees’ affective commitment to their organisation
in culturally diverse workplaces.
Scholars have argued that charismatic theories employ a set of ethical values for
leaders‟ regarding the behaviour of the leader and the relationship between the leader
and their followers (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990 and Conger and Kanungo, 1998). The
issue of leaders using their skills for achieving selfish goals, or otherwise lacking
integrity, is sometimes referred to as the “dark side of leadership.” Although some have
argued that leadership must by definition be ethical (Fulmer, 2004), others in contrast
indicate that some leaders are able to garner the support and resources of others to
achieve objectives that are self-serving and not ethical (e.g. Burch, 2006; Furnham and
Taylor, 2004; Goldman, 2006; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). The following section will
consider in further detail the dark side of charismatic leadership behaviour.
3.3.1.6. The ‘Dark Side’ of Charismatic Leadership
This study examines the role of leadership behaviours in leading a culturally diverse
team based work environment. Ethics in reference to the effectiveness of culturally
diverse teams in business have prompted the motivation for a search for new and better
paradigms to improve the culture diversity. Scholars in the leadership field have argued
that the main differences between charismatic leadership and transformational and
67
authentic leadership relate to the emphasis placed on ethical conduct (e.g. Cameron,
Dutton and Quinn, 2003; Ciulla, 2005a). These leadership styles include, inspiring,
values based leadership styles that contain an ethical content and so overlap into the
field of ethics (Brown and Treviño, 2006a). Therefore, it is essential to provide a clear
definition of ethicality as it associates with leadership in organisations, since it is a
broad issue that can be culturally connected with an organisation. However, some
scholars in this field have claimed that what is believed to be unethical or amoral by one
organisation may be seen as ethical behaviour and an acceptable technique for
maximising profits in another. (Husted, 1999; Robertson, et al., 2002; Robertson; Gilley
and Street, 2003; Baccarani, 2008). In a general sense, the term ethics refers to a set of
moral norms, principles or values that guide people's behaviour (Sherwin, 1983). The
terms unethical or ethical according to Brunk (2010) “describe an individual's subjective
moral judgment of right/wrong or good/bad” (P. 255) .
Charismatic leadership has been defined as having an ethical component, for instance,
Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) stated that “followers with a clear sense of purpose that is
energising, is a role model for ethical conduct and builds identification with the leader
and his or her articulated vision” (P. 444). This confirms that ethical conduct is an
essential feature of transformational and charismatic leadership behaviour. At the same
time, however, transformational and charismatic leaders can utilise their influence for
positive or negative goals or objectives, indicating that they could utilise their power to
achieve ethical or unethical ends.
Accordingly, House and Howell and (1992) distinguished between personalised and
socialised charisma. They developed their conception of the two forms of charisma
based on the leader‟s power motive, type of influence and behaviours. A personalised
charismatic leader is driven by his private motives, convinces followers that his goals
and approaches are those of a submissively obedient followership and that his mission
that has little life without the leader‟s influence. On the other hand, a socialised
charismatic leader has a marked concern to ensure the ethical application of power and
strives to use their power for the good of others (Howell and Shamir, 2005).
68
According to the concept of a socialised charismatic leader, Conger and Kanungo
(1998) focus on the components of charismatic leadership that highlight the ethical
nature of leaders who are described as being socialised charismatic leaders in an
organisation (as opposed to personalized charismatic leaders). They mentioned three
dimensions for this charismatic form: “the leader‟s motives, the leader‟s influence
strategies and the leader‟s character formation” (P. 213). Thus, charismatic leaders
demonstrate ethical leadership when they strive to perform with collective intention;
this encourages followers to take control and as a consequence they are more
independent of the leader (Shamir et al., 1993; Brown and Treviño, 2006b; Brown and
Treviño, 2006a). Additionally, the socialised charismatic leader is driven by a need to
improve a social situation, House and Howell (1992) have noted that this type of
charismatic leader tends to have more feminine personality characteristics, such as
being supportive, fostering, sensitive and selfless. To conclude, and on basis of
Howell‟s (1992) argument, judging if charismatic leadership is ethical or unethical can
be achieved by evaluating a leader‟s need for power, locus of control, power inhibition,
authoritarianism, self-esteem, Machiavellianism and self-interest.
Empirical evidence supports what was discussed above by Parry and Proctor-Thompson
(2002) that the ethical nature of transformational and charismatic leadership remains a
debatable issue. They studied the perceived integrity of transformational/charismatic
leaders in an organisational context. Transformational/ charismatic leaders have been
given positive characteristics such as “inspirational” and “charismatic” by some
followers, however other followers have described the same leaders as “narcissistic,”
“manipulative,” and self-centred”. Bass and Avolio‟s, (2000) study of an ethical
dimension of leadership has been embedded primarily within the transformational and
charismatic leadership domains. However, these proposed relationships between
transformational/charismatic versus transactional leadership and ethical versus unethical
leadership are not clear-cut. Moreover, some researchers asserted that the relationship
between transformational/charismatic leadership and ethical leadership remains
questionable and not evident (Bass and Steidlmeir, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 2000, Brown
and Treviňo 2006b).
69
Moreover, Brown, Treviňo and Harrison (2005) pointed out that transformational and
charismatic leadership theories both focus on a leader‟s ability to articulate a clear
vision to followers, but make little mention of an inherent ethical component to that
leader‟s behaviour. In addition, the vision put forward by transformational/charismatic
leaders does not have to be authentic or true to their sense of self. Transformational/
charismatic leaders may put forward a vision that is not in accordance with their values
and beliefs in order to influence their followers. Through reviewing 600 books and
articles on leadership, Aronson (2001) concluded that transactional leaders or managers‟
use an authoritative basis from which to control others that entails unethical behaviour.
Aronson suggests that to retain an ethical stance, leaders require more enthusiasm to
influence or convince others in a moral manner. In addition, he concluded that
transactional leadership is more closely associated with lower levels of moral
development than transformational and charismatic leadership. Shapiro (2001) adds that
a true transformational leader is ethical by nature and operates with a genuine concern
for others.
In the light of the distinctions made above this study focuses only on the positive side of
charismatic leadership. This examination does not seek to focus on the differential
effects of socialised and personalised charismatic qualities, but on the specific effects of
charismatic leader‟s behaviours on their followers‟ perspectives. It is supposed that the
positive outcomes of charismatic leadership on followers are most frequently expected
to occur as a result of the socialised approach. It is assumed that as a socialised
charismatic leader would be expected to exhibit positive ethical values (Kanungo and
Mendonca, 1998), this makes the followers‟ attitude more positive also (Brown and
Treviño, 2006a). Further, Shamir, House and Arthur‟s, 1993 and Conger and Kanungo‟s
(1997) theory implies a concentration on the more positive side of charisma to acquire a
desirable cognitive and behavioural impact on followers.
Therefore, the measure of charismatic leadership utilised in this study draws upon the
theory of charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1998), which characterises the
leader in a manner similar to Howell‟s conception of socialised charismatic leadership
in an organisation.
70
However, recently, researchers have started to consider ethical leadership as a set of
behaviours or a behavioural style that is unique in itself, rather than focusing only on
ethical aspects of other leadership styles. In fact, researchers have shown that ethical
leadership is empirically related to the charismatic, transformational, transactional and
authentic leadership presented above (cf., Brown et al., 2005; Kalshoven, Den Hartog,
Hoogh, 2011a; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In this study ethical leadership is also
approached as being a separate leadership style. The following section addresses this
style in some detail.
3.3.2. Ethical Leadership
In the last few years, ethics and integrity have received a growing amount of attention in
the leadership field (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Kalshove et al., 2011a;
Kalshove, Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2011b). Ethical leaders engage in leadership in
such a way that respects the rights and dignity of their members (Ciulla, 2005b).
According to Ciulla (1995b), good leadership does not only affect how well-informed a
leader is, but also how ethical the leader is. Thus, he argued that “ethics lies at the heart
of leadership studies” (p. 17).
Kanungo (2001) also stressed the point that to be selfless is the best example of ethical
leadership. In other words, ethical leaders should be inspired and directed by a concern
for others, which can be articulated in two ways: incorporated with a self-concern that
actions will be equally valuable, or acting only on the basis of enthusiasm to encourage
followers to achieve a collective-interest.
Increased diversity in the workplace has led to new leadership roles as well as new
strategies being employed to carry out these roles (Rantz, 2002). Thus, diversity raises
new ethical issues and presents both leaders and followers with new positions that may
challenge established ethics (Bass and Avoil, 1990; Hart, 1998; Kreps, 1990; Schein,
1990). Leaders, therefore, are advised to react efficiently to surpass dissimilarities
arising from nationality, treating all employees equally, and demonstrating a respect for
other cultures, regardless of where the employees originated from. This position is
71
supported by Morrison (2006), who asserted that the development of global ethical
standards within multinational companies is a key issue when ensuring equal treatment.
The main areas that global ethical standards should address, according to Morrison
(2006), are: “Worker safety, equality in hiring, equality of opportunity for job
assignments and promotions, freedom of expression” (p.165).
In their theoretical study Brown and Treviño (2006c) argued that those working for
ethical leaders are more motivated because they are more satisfied with their leader,
they recognise this effectiveness and so are willing to work harder, and are also more
likely to report any problems that they experience. The reverse is true when unethical
leadership behaviour is observed. For that reason, it is essential that leaders are
perceived as demonstrating high standards of ethical conduct by their followers.
Furthermore, Cho and Dansereau (2010) emphasised that leadership is obstructed by
followers that do not pay attention to perceptions of fairness. Consequently, for
leadership to be charismatic, followers must believe they are acting in a way that is
equitable. Leaders that are not aware of, or do not know how to lead by exhibiting
fairness will be, at best, diluted by their followers.
House et al. (2004) pointed out that cultural diversity influences the extent to which
discrimination takes place in an organisation, particularly resulting from cross-cultural
inconsistency regarding the extent to which discrimination against certain groups occurs
when restructuring the cultural norm. Therefore, in circumstances of cultural diversity,
there is indeed an absolute and urgent need for ethical leadership. Leaders should
remember that they are working with employees whose values, beliefs and expectations
differ; this means placing importance on engaging in personalised interactions, and an
awareness of their own biases, prejudices and attitudes toward those who are dissimilar
(Chrobot-Mason and Ruderman, 2004). Additionally, this is crucial because where
perceived biases, prejudices and discrimination at work persist and have serious effects
on both employees and organisational well-being (Cox, 1993; Dipboye and Colella,
2005; Goldman, et al., 2006), employees suffer dissatisfaction with their work and
increased stress, leading to a higher turnover (Gee, 2002; Robinson and Dechant, 1997;
Goldman, et al., 2006 and Smith et al., 2010)
72
Increased cultural diversity in the workplace has led to new roles for leadership as well
as new strategies being put in place oversee these roles (Rantz, 2002). Consequently,
leaders must respond appropriately to the demands of the diverse workplace. Thus, in
the context of diversity, this means that the leader must display ethical conduct (e.g.
honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, just treatment and care). For the purpose of
maintaining ethical conduct, Dean (1997) acknowledged that leaders should be
encouraged to emphasise the necessity for the understanding of ethical standards, and
know how they should be applied. Additionally, some scholars have argued that
character and a superior reputation are considered to be an important component of
ethical leadership (Calabrese and Roberts, 2002; Treviňo, Hartman and Brown, 2000).
To investigate the impact of ethical leadership behaviour Zhu, May and Avolio (2004)
pointed out that the leader as a role model must exhibit ethical behaviours to their
employees, modelling ethical behaviours to confirm the ethical behaviours of others.
Hence, leaders must generate an ethical culture that promotes the improvement of
ethical behaviour in others. Further, employee trust in leaders, employee compliance,
and work performance is correlated with ethical leadership behaviour, which includes
fairness honesty and trustworthiness (Zhu et al., 2004).
Teylor and Strickland (2002) in their experimental study of perceptions of ethical
leadership, mentioned some of the most important behaviours of an ethical leader,
which includes for instance, integrity, honesty, reliability, competence and fairness. In
addition, they referred to other important features, such as the use of rational influence,
leading by example, trustworthiness, and accepting the consequences of individual‟s
actions and a strong sense of responsibility. They argue that studies with an
experimental design may have limited generalisability to real-life situations.
Much has been written about ethical leadership from a normative or philosophical
perspective, emphasising the importance of an organisation maintaining ethical
leadership behaviours towards its employees (Carroll, 1978; Lester, 1981, Bowie, 1982;
Walton, 1988; McDonald and Zepp. 1989; Butler, 1997; Beauchamp and Bowie, 2001;
Treviňo, Brown and Pincus, 2003; Brown, Treviňo, Harrison, 2005; De Hoogh, Den
73
Hartog, 2008). Additionally, it can be argued that since homogeneous work groups‟
perceptions of ethical leadership may be distinct from heterogeneous workgroups‟
perceptions, both must be considered when evaluating the effects of ethical leadership.
Therefore, a study that explores ethical leadership as perceived in a diverse workplace is
needed. To fill this need, the present study aims to address the gap by expanding the
literature in this area, by empirically testing the relationship between ethical leadership
and leader effectiveness in private organisations in the culturally diverse context
described as existing in Saudi Arabia at SABIC.
In summary, after the brief review of the ethical leadership literature, it can be argued
that to increase employee positive behaviour and attitude and reduce negativity in
culturally diverse work places, leaders are recommended to strive for higher levels of
ethical behaviours to respond effectively to team members. They should not be limited
or influenced by negative attitudes, thoughts or feelings, but be willing to do what‟s
right and fair for all employees, regardless of their followers‟ psychological
characteristics (personality, values, attitudes and beliefs).
3.3.2.1. Ethical leadership and Leader Effectiveness Hypotheses Development
In terms of the relationship between ethical leadership and effectiveness, there are
several studies to date that have investigated this issue. For instance, De Hoogh and Den
Hartog (2008) conducted a study looking at 73 small and medium-sized organisations in
the Netherlands to investigate how CEO‟s ethical leadership behaviour (morality and
fairness, role clarification and power sharing) related to perceived top management
effectiveness and subordinates‟ optimism. The study revealed that ethical leadership is
found to be important in terms of perceived top management team effectiveness and
subordinates‟, optimism about the future of the organisation and their own place within
it. The following section develops the study hypotheses in terms of ethical leadership
and leader effectiveness.
74
Ethical Leadership and Level of Cohesion
There is evidence in literature that supports a link between group cohesion and
perceived fairness as an ethical leadership principle. According to Treviño et al. (2000,
2003), leader behaviours such as a concern for individuals and fair treatment of
employees are pivotal in perceptions of ethical leadership. Empirically, for example,
Chansler et al.‟s (2003) study examined the determinants of group cohesion in self-
managing work teams, referred to as “natural work groups”. These work groups
(NWGS) are empowered to successfully run the business of assembling motorcycles.
One of the most significant findings that the study revealed related to: (a) employee
control over team staffing; and (b) that the perceived fairness of the leadership among
the group explains nearly 42% of the variance in group cohesion. The study concluded
that the fair treatment of team members was one of the most important contributors to
group cohesion in self-managing work teams (SMWT). The author therefore proposes
the same effect as relevant to the culturally diverse workplace:
Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and the level
of cohesion in culturally diverse workplaces.
Ethical Leadership and Level of Conflict
Many authors have emphasised the importance of maintaining ethical leadership
standards to manage conflict in a business environment (Lester, 1981; Bowie, 1982;
Walton, 1988 McDonald and Zepp, 1989; Butler, 1997; Bowie et al., 2001; Treviňo,
Brown and Hartman, 2003; Brown, Treviňo, Harrison, 2005; De Hoogh and Den
Hartog, 2008). Therefore, leaders are viewed to play a dynamic role in the establishment
of any new ethical behaviour that requires a common foundation of mutual values that
followers may share in an existing multicultural condition. Beliefs and the values they
support and implement, offer a crucial standard, directing followers‟ interaction with
each other and assessing followers‟ organisational achievement (Blasé and Kirby, 1992;
Chang, Labovitz and Rosansky, 1992; Fairholm, 1991). Therefore, establishing issues
of fairness and just treatment of people is a fundamental element of business policies
and decision making procedure. The authors asserted that when leaders fail to reflect
ethical leadership behaviours, when leading in this cultural diverse environment, this
can lead to group conflict. The author therefore proposes:
75
Hypothesis 2b: There is a negative relationship between leader ethicality as leadership
behaviour and the level of conflict in culturally diverse workplaces.
Ethical Leadership and Level of Affective Commitment
Meyer and Allen (1997) report that relationships between employees and their
supervisors influence the development of affective commitment, in the sense that
employees who are allowed to participate in decision-making, and who are treated fairly
and with consideration, are more committed. Merey et al. (2002) interpreted this to
indicate that organisations that show support treat employees fairly and demonstrate
strong leadership will generate commitment. Related findings were reported in public
sector studies; Balfour and Wechsler (1990) showed the significance of employee
participation in decision-making and other aspects of organisational life, including fair
and effective supervision providing adequate discretion, opportunity for advancement
and social relationships within a work group.
Moreover, Sims and Kroeck (1994) extended the notion of compatibility to address
“ethical fit”, or correspondence between individual and organisational ethical standards.
Their findings indicated that higher degrees of ethical fit were associated with greater
organisational commitment and lower turnover intentions. Some authors claimed that
leaders in organisations are likely to create organisational systems that employees
understand as ethical behaviours (Tatum and Eberlin, 2008). Research in this field
suggests that when a leader treats their employees fairly, those employees are likely to
respond by adopting behaviours beneficial to that organisation (Allen et al., 2004;
Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Kerman and Hanges, 2002; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992).
Some scholars have proposed that the use of fair procedures and systems may enhance
employee commitment because fairness suggests that employees are respected members
of an organisation (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Fair procedures enhance the feeling of being
treated as full members of the organisation, which in turn reinforces the emotional bond
amongst the group and/or the organisation (Tyler and Lind, 1992). Pillai, Williams, and
Tan (2001) used a questionnaire to collect data showing harmony in the relationship
between justice and trust across cultures in the United States, Germany, India and
China. In multiple cultures, Pillia et al. (2001) revealed that when people experienced
76
unfairness they showed less commitment and were more likely to contemplate leaving
their organisation.
The presumed link between perceptions of procedural justice and discretionary
behaviour was recently affirmed in the literature (e.g. Cohen-Charash and Spector,
2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng, 2001) and is consistent with the earlier
argument that ethical procedures enhance the feeling of diverse groups being treated as
full members of the organisation. This sentiment should, therefore, predispose
individuals to perform activities and assume roles that exceed their normal tasks (De
Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2002; Tepper and Taylor, 2003) and also to remain full
members of the organisation (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003; Mulinge, 2001; Simons
and Roberson, 2003). We therefore propose:
Hypothesis 2c: There is a positive relationship between leader ethicality as leadership
behaviour and the level of employees’ commitment to the organisation in
culturally diverse workplaces.
In addition to the above, this study focuses on the examination of leadership behaviours
that can change the way in which followers with diverse cultural backgrounds perceive
themselves. Specifically, this study empirically examines how leaders activate
followers‟ social identity (collective identity and leader prototypicality) in terms of a
collective identity, acting according to the norms of the collective, in this case their
team. Thus, the following section will briefly discuss social identity as an important
component in guaranteeing effective leadership in a diverse workplace.
3.3.3. Social Identity Theory of Leadership as Moderator for Leader Effectiveness
The central aim of this thesis is to examine the moderating role of social identity theory
(team identity and leader prototypicality) in the relationship between charismatic and
ethical leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. Over the last decade, leadership
research has witnessed the emergence of social identity as a method for analysing
77
leadership (Cicero, 2010). The value of the concept of social identity is that it offers
insights into how group memberships shape attitudes, feelings, and behaviour (van
Knippenberg, 2003). Social identity theory has been used to predict and understand how
diversity influences individual attitudes and behaviour as well as team dynamics (van
Knippenberg, et al., 2011). To explain the effects of diversity on individual outcomes,
the basic argument is that one‟s similarity to visible and relatively immutable traits
influences feelings of identification (Tsui, Egan and O‟Reilly, 1992). By extending the
logic of theories that explain individual attitudes and behaviour, diversity researchers
have uncovered a strong theoretical rationale for making predictions about how
diversity is likely to influence social processes within teams and organisations (e.g. Jehn
et al., 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999). Although social categorisation and
social identity theory were originally developed to explain the effects of readily-
detected diversity (surface-level), some scholars have used these theories in recent times
to explain the effects of personality and value-based diversity (deep-level) (e.g. Thomas,
1999). Many researchers have adopted social identity theory and social categorisation
theory to understand the effects of workplace diversity (Brewer, 1995; Northcraft,
Polzer, Neale and Kramer, 1995). Additionally, these theories without a doubt enrich
our understanding of the dynamics of cultural diversity and the concept of the self;
thereby providing a basis for investigating the effects of multi-dimensional diversity.
Therefore, to bridge cultural diversity and multicultural limitations it is necessary to
become involved in team work (Becker, 1998; De Young et al. 2003; Emerson and
Kim, 2003; Emerson and Woo, 2006).
Recently, researchers in this field have become interested in the concept of group
identity (e.g. James, 2008; Blader and Tyler, 2009; Tajfel, 2010 and Lee and Chen,
2011; Patel et al., 2011). Group identity refers to the essential features of a structured
group of individuals that share answers to the question: “who are we?”, assisting the
connecting of followers to organisations and to each other (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).
They argued that the stronger the feeling of “we” is embedded in a group, the less
significant individual distinctions appear to be. Group values, customs and norms
classify team members and strengthen the sense of collective social identity.
Consequently, strong organisational collective social identity can reduce internal in-
group/out-group dissimilarities and create a negative attitude.
78
At the beginning, it may be helpful to demonstrate in brief what social identity theory
(SIT) means when used as an influential theoretical framework to realise individuals‟
behavioural patterns. The idea of social identity as developed by Tajfel (1972) refers to
a method by which individuals identify with certain social groups, according to this, one
feels a strong sense of belonging to a particular group, and there is a perceived
partisanship in the group as it is a critical feature of group identity.
Tajfel and Turner (1986) proved the difference between interpersonal conditions and
group conditions. SIT starts from the assumption that people make every effort to
achieve or sustain a positive social identity, thus enhancing their self-esteem. This in
turn develops a favourable comparison that can be related to the in-group and related to
the out-groups. Generally speaking, social identity theory (SIT) predicts that an
individual‟s endeavour to achieve a positive self-perception and identity, to a certain
extent consists of membership of an organisation (Hogg and Terry, 2000). In addition to
these basic principles, Tajefel and Turner (1986) also illustrated three groups of
variables that might increase the weight of comparisons in the intergroup: individuals
should identify their selves with an in-group subjectively; the situation should permit
evaluative intergroup comparisons; a similar or proximal out-group must be evaluated
adequately. In 1987, John Turner and colleagues presented Self-Categorization Theory
(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell, 1987), which adds to the SIT hypothesis
regarding people‟s behaviour within a group. People can classify themselves on diverse
levels: a personal level, as a member of group different from relative out-groups or with
the organisation altogether.
In agreement with the above, Brown (2000) stated that SIT contribution appeared
significant in four areas: in-group favouritism; reactions to the level of dissimilarity;
intergroup homogeneity and stereotyping; accordingly intergroups change their
attitudes. This point of view has been developed officially according to Self
Categorisation Theory (SCT). SCT demonstrates that consistent behaviour could impact
on the internalisation of equal group concepts and in-group members‟ definite attributes
(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). Additionally, Haslam (2004)
considered that, Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory are considered
as two components of the Social Identity Approach.
79
Social-categorisation has been the principal psychological mechanism identified to
explain why culture diversity impacts on group performance negatively (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). Social categorisation is associated with perceptual and
attitudinal biases that favour people from the in-group and denigrate people from the
out-group. Thus, social categorisation may disrupt elaboration of task-relevant
information because of possible positive basis (e.g., favouritisms) toward in-group
members and negative biases toward out-group members (e.g. derogation). Since social
psychologists have translated schemes of the social identity approach successfully into
organisational environments, this has been a productive framework from which to
investigate and recognise leadership issues, efficiency, and decision making,
communication or workplace pressures and also to draw on matters such as, power,
complaint and collective action, debates and amalgamations (Haslam, 2004; Haslam and
Ellemers, 2005; Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003; van Dick, 2004; van Dick, et al.,
2004).
This study explores here whether team identity moderates the relationship between
leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. Chemers (2001) pointed out that in
order to prevent identity-based conflicts from emerging and growing, the leaders of
diverse workgroups must enhance a groups‟ collective identity, binding its members to
the organisation and to one another. In this sense, leadership effectiveness is often
described in terms of leaders‟ ability to inspire followers towards a collective goal,
which is achieving the organisation‟s mission and vision. Therefore, a deeper
understanding of the components of social identification and its consequences in
organisational contexts is extremely valuable. To achieve organisational goals, diverse
groups should improve their common social identity within the group and begin to
exchange information to enhance group effectiveness. To do so, Zee et al. (2004)
emphasised the importance of developing a common social identity amongst group
members. Hence, for group members from different backgrounds, a component of their
actions is influenced by their social identity. This in turn negatively affects constructive
group processes, which may then have a harmful impact on performance (Messick and
Mackie, 1989).
80
Recent research findings not only show that leadership may affect follower‟s
identification with the collective, but also that this effect on identification
mediates/moderates the effects of follower attitudes and behaviour. For example, Hogg,
(2003) emphasised that there are specific features of leadership that may have an effect
on followers‟ identification. For instance, charismatic and transformational leadership
theories, which emphasise the importance of charismatic leadership as aspects of
building collective identification, impact on leader‟s collective identification and is
correlated to leaders‟ self-sacrificing behaviour (Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998; Yorges,
Weiss and Strickland, 1999). This displays self-confidence (Conger and Kanungo,
1987), a characteristic of charismatic and transformational leaders. In the same way
Kark et al. (2003) correlated charismatic and transformational leadership to follower
identification with collective action. A leader enhances their team‟s internal
cohesiveness and reciprocity through communication, initiating group goals and
creating goal interdependencies. Internalisation of a sense of group identification and
commitment is achievable when a leader leads by emphasising collective goals, creating
a group vision and exhibiting some sort of self-sacrifice to attain those goals (Conger
and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Lester et al., 2002).
The studies that have been discussed above suggest that it can be argued that
charismatic and transformational leadership derives something of its effectiveness from
the impact of follower identification with the team. However, as shown in the literature
review, the potential of the team to identify its role as moderator of the effectiveness of
leadership behaviour is stated conceptually; although bottom-line outcomes have not
been investigated empirically. This debate has emerged mostly from research into social
identification and collective self-constructs (e.g. Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van
Knippenberg, 2003; Lord and Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999; van Knippenberg and
Hogg, 2003).
Leader prototypicality is also seen as an important determinant of leadership
effectiveness in the case of social-identity being used to measure leadership behaviour
(Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).
Brodbeck et al. (2000) indicated that “prototypical concepts are also formed about
leadership traits and behaviours and they are used to distinguish leaders from non-
81
leaders (or outstanding from average, moral from amoral leaders etc.)” (p.3). Thus,
leaders‟ prototype-based leadership behaviour has the ability to attract and influence the
group, and therefore strengthen the leader‟s effectiveness. Hogg (2001) described such
prototypes as context specific skills that can define and prescribe behaviour, beliefs,
norms, attitudes and values. This kind of analysis of leadership stresses that leaders
function partially as members of the groups they lead they share one or more group
memberships. The crucial point in this argument is that leaders who represent a group‟s
identity are seen to be more fully authorised and more effective (Hogg and van
Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).
Therefore, the leadership research into the structure of social identity in the workplace
has concentrated primarily on prototypicality. However, Shamir et al. (1993) proposed
that the decision to follow a leader is a dynamic process, based on the degree to which
followers perceive their leaders to be demonstrating their followers‟ perceptions and
values. In essence, followers may be more attracted to leaders who seem to be
prototypical.
Brodbeck et al. (2000) suggested that it would be essential for leaders to understand
diversity in order to be effective in view of the potential impact of people of diverse
nationalities working together. These authors establish their hypotheses on the basis that
pre-existing leadership prototypes are a resource that accounts for variance across
cultures. The findings revealed that leadership prototypes are associated with a cultural
structure and therefore the values and beliefs of a particular nation. Nations that have
similar cultural guides have similar leader prototypes. Therefore, in culturally diverse
workplaces such as SABIC, different values and beliefs with respect to leadership may
prevail, making it crucial for leaders to establish a collective identity to overcome these
differences.
Social identity among group members is related to group behaviour and attitude,
cohesion (Trice and Beyer, 1993) and relationship conflict (Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman,
Weber, Ohlott and Dalton, 2007). According to Hofstede (1997) employees with a
collective identity tend to have long term goals and interests. This results in long-term
82
commitment to the organisation (Bass, 1998). Some scholars of social identity have
argued that team identification and leader prototypicality may encourage different
individuals to behave according to team norms and standards, in order to gain
acceptance in the team (Branscombe, et al., 1999; Schmitt, et al., 2001), alleviating any
negative effect of diversity (Hobman and Bordia, 2006).
The main aim of this study is to extend previous research examining the impact of
leadership behaviour on leader effectiveness, investigating the role of team
identification and leader prototypicality. The studies described above are limited to
modest theoretical and empirical evidence regarding the direct relationship between
social identity and leadership effectiveness.
The author found, when researching the information presented above, that there is lack
of empirical studies that examine the moderator role in the case of social identity, as
related to the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership and leader‟s
effectiveness. Therefore, most importantly, by examining the moderating role of social
identity (team identity and leader prototypicality), the researcher has responded to van
Knippenberg and Schippers‟ (2007) call for more attention to be paid to the moderators
of social categorisation of diversity research.
This also enables us to further Kalshoven and Den Hartog‟s (2009) work on leader
prototypicality by exploring models that include moderation (rather than mediation),
influencing the relationship between ethical leadership and leader‟s effectiveness. The
present study recognises the potential role of leader prototypicality as a moderating
force between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness. In reference to the
following, it can be argued that much can be gained by pursuing this line of research
and by studying the moderator role of leader prototypicality in the relationship between
leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness. This result may help us to understand
better how prototypical leaders can influence important aspects of their followers‟
behaviour and attitudes, such as group cohesion, group relationship conflict and
affective commitment.
83
Although, scholars have suggested that social identity plays a critical role in terms of
leaders‟ ethicality (e.g. fairness) regarding employees (cf., van Knippenberg and Hogg,
2003), this suggestion does not appear to have been investigated empirically to date.
Therefore, the current study is to be the first empirical study to examine the moderator‟s
role in terms of team identity and group leader prototypicality and the affect of this on
the relationship between ethical leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness in
culturally diverse workplaces.
In the light of the discussions above, this study proposes that both team-identity and
leader prototypicality moderate the relationship between charismatic leadership, ethical
leadership and three key work-related outcomes. This leads to the formulation of the
following:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical) and leader effectiveness will be moderated by leadership prototypes.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical) and leader effectiveness will be moderated by team identity.
3.4. Overview of the Gaps in the Literature and Scope of the Current Study
This review of the literature enables the author to identify the gap which needs to be
investigated. The current study examines the issue of cultural diversity in depth
(nonobservable) in the case of the teams under investigation; diversity features have
received modest attention rather than surface-level (observable) diversity in the
organisational behaviour literature (Milliken and Martins, 1996); however, this may be
critical for informing leadership behaviour given the increase in the number of
multicultural companies. Moreover, this study contributes to the comparatively small
number of studies on team leader and follower behaviour and advances the literature in
terms of non-observable diversity characteristics.
Many cross-cultural studies are undertaken in the United States, Europe and Japan and
other East Asian countries (e.g. Larsson and Ronnmark, 1996; Lashley, 2000; Boehnke
et al., 2003, Rowold and Heinitz, 2007; Côté and colleagues, 2010). However, there has
so far been no reported attempt to validate new leadership theories in the Saudi Arabian
84
contextual setting. There is then an urgent need for the replication of new leadership
theories in Saudi Arabia, and this is what is motivating the present researcher to
undertake a study to explore to what extent the Conger and Kanungo behavioural theory
of charismatic leadership (C-K model) (Conger and Kanungo, 1997) can be used to
explain leadership effectiveness (reduce levels of relation conflict and increase levels of
cohesion and affective commitment in diverse work teams) in multi-cultural companies
Saudi Arabia. Additionally, and with regards to ethical leadership theory, most scholars
are focusing only on ethical aspects of other leadership styles transformation,
charismatic and authentic leadership (e.g. Cameron, et al., 2003; Ciulla, 2005a; Brown
and Treviño, 2006a; Zhu, et al., 2011; Sosik, et al., 2011); whereas, this study considers
ethical leadership as a set of behaviours in itself. To the author‟s knowledge there is no
empirical study that examines the moderators of social identity on the relationship
between specific leadership styles (charismatic and ethical) in the diversity context.
Furthermore, this study responds to Whit and Lean‟s (2008) call for attaching value to
examining the relationship between perceived leader ethics and their effect on employee
behaviours. Since most of the previous literature has concentrated on the effect of
ethical leadership, which influences top management and CEOs, the present study is
intended to examine how leaders in a work team affect the behaviour and attitude of
their subordinates.
Therefore, this study aims to bridge the gaps between the scarcity of studies on the
newer theories of leadership in terms of leadership effectiveness and the moderating
role of social identity in multi-cultural teams. This is a keystone approach, in light of the
growing importance of culture as an important topic in this era of globalisation;
organisations are opening up to embrace multi-cultural candidates in order to gain better
competitive positions, so it is necessary to understand how this can best be achieved.
3.5. Summary and Model Proposal
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between leadership behaviours
and follower‟s social identity in the culturally diverse workplace. Leaders are
recommended to effectively reduce group relation conflict, increase group cohesion and
attain high level of affective commitment to the organisation; how they can achieve this is
85
considered here. Based on a synthesis of the academic literature reviewed in this chapter,
two integrated leadership theories and social identity theories which refer to proposed
leadership behaviours figure (3.2) are hypothesised to influence leadership effectiveness.
As has been mentioned earlier culture plays a role in determining the values and
aspirations of people. As a consequence, the need for leaders who have the ability to
motivate, communicate and deal with different cultural challenges is increased across
multinational companies (Dorfman, et al., 2004). Thus, as discussed in this chapter, in
seeking an effective leadership style in a culturally diverse workplace, this study built on
Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) model. This model has six classifications: strategic vision
and articulation, sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to member needs, personal
risk, and unconventional behaviours. Conger and Kanungo (1997) argue that their model
is arguably the most comprehensive integrative approach to studying leadership; it is a
model that can be applied universally, because its dimensions are perceived across
cultures (Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 2002).
Another theoretically important aspect of this study is determining the impact of ethical
leadership when leading a culturally diverse workplace. Besides charismatic behaviours at
team level, effective leaders should possess these behaviours as described by an ethical
value (Hogg el al. 2005). However, the tendency towards a multicultural workplace raises
serious and difficult issues in terms of ethics; diversity raises new ethical issues and
presents both leaders and followers with new situations that may challenge established
practice. Thus, successful leaders must exhibit the characteristics of charismatic
leadership behaviour to set out an ethical groundwork for an organisation (Bass and
Avolio, 1990; Hart, 1988; Kreps, 1990; Schein, 1990; Wauumbwa et. al, 2008; Den
Hartog and De Hoogh, 2011a).
To enrich our understanding of diversity dynamics and follower identity this study
adopts social identity theory, specifically, leader prototypicality and team identification.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) clarifies the cultural diversity challenges within
organisations. This theory assumes that team members create a positive social identity
and improve relationships by demonstrating a preference for members of their own
social category (Ayoko, 2006). The more prototypical a leader, the more he or she
represents the group‟s attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, values, and norms (Hogg, 2001). The
86
prototypical leader prescribes appropriate attitudes and behaviours and so has a significant
effect on group identity by presenting an idealised representation of their identity (Giessner
and van Knippenberg, 2008). Social identity theory provides a grounded basis for
investigating the effects of cultural diversity on workplace relationships. Therefore, with
this approach, leaders can transform their followers‟ beliefs and values, and influence
them to put the organisation‟s interests before their own. As a result of this behavioural
change, charismatic leaders create an effective and meaningful workplace for
employees (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002). Which in turn reduces employee‟s negative
behaviour and attitude and promotes a positive atmosphere (Perryer and Jordan, 2005;
López-Zafra, et al., 2008; Wendt, et al., 2009; Lee, Cheng, Yeung, and Lai, 2011).
Therefore, leaders in culturally diverse environments have the difficult task of
maintaining the positive aspects of the diversity found in their workers, as well as
modelling those diverse values and customs into a new culture that asks workers to trust
each other and collaborate according to specific organisational values (Burns, 1978;
Fisher, 1990; Trice and Beyer, 1993). Understanding this diversity and complexity could
assist in overcoming relationship conflict and creating a highly cohesive team that has a
high level of affective commitment to the organisation. This conflict potential may be the
outcome of competing identities within a person or an organisation and could lead to
(violent) conflict (Coy and Woehrle, 2000; Kriesberg, 2003).
Figure (3.2): Integrated Leadership and Social Identity Theories
(Proposed leadership behaviour) Produced for the purpose of this research
Social Identity
Proposed
leadership
behaviours Ethical
Leadership
behaviours
Charismatic
Leadership
behaviours
87
According to figure (1) the leadership in the central zone indicates the proposed
leadership behaviours searched for in this study. Leaders who possess charismatic
behaviours with ethical standards should be found to emphasise the collective interests
and leader prototypicality. This in turn, increases leadership effectiveness to achieve
organisation goals with low internal personal conflict, high cohesion and high afflictive
organisational commitment. Conger and Kanungo (1994) stated that the next important
step for future research is to “vigorously establish criterion validity” (p.451). For
example, they suggested that some potential outcomes of charismatic leadership may be
high cohesion, low internal conflict, high value similarity, high commitment to
organisational goals. The present study expands the literature by empirically testing the
relationship between charismatic leadership using the C-K scale and some of the variables
suggested. Specifically, this study investigates the charismatic phenomenon in private
organisations in a culturally diverse context.
From the literature review and analysis above the researcher articulated a formal study
model and the hypotheses given. The overall framework is summarised in Figure (3.3)
88
Figure (3-3): Proposed Model
89
According to the proposed model above this study hypothesises that leadership
behaviours (charismatic and ethical behaviours) have a relationship to a leader‟s
effectiveness (level of team cohesion, level of relation conflict and level of affective
commitment). This relationship is assumed to become stronger when leadership
behaviours are combined with team identity and leader prototypicality.
The path to fulfilling these research objectives constitutes the research methodology.
Thus, the next chapter will discuss alternative research methodologies, selecting from a
multiplicity of methods, procedures and models of research methodology, which will
help to most effectively test the study framework.
90
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present a rationale for the methodological approach
that has been adopted, by providing an explanation of the processes and procedures
deemed relevant for the design of the study, the data collection techniques. This is
followed by a description of the data collection, measurements, human participants and
ethical precautions. Finally, in this chapter the researcher tests the study instruments‟
validity and reliability for pilot and main study.
In order to explain the methodology of the current study, it is essential to refer back to
the study objectives formulated and detailed in the introduction. The study has the
following aims:
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical leadership) and the level of conflict at culturally diverse workplaces in
Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical leadership) and the level of cohesion at culturally diverse workplaces in
Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).
To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical leadership)and the level of employees‟ commitment to their organisations
in culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation
(SABIC).
To examine the moderating impact of social identity (team identity) on the
relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical leadership)
and leading a diverse workplace effectively (defined as low conflict, high
cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).
To examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality) on
the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical
leadership) and leading a diverse workplace effectively (i.e. low relation
91
conflict, high group cohesion and high affective commitment to the
organisation).
4.2. Research Purpose and general model
Scholars classified three types of research according to the purpose of the methodical
investigation, namely; exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (Robson, 2011; Yin,
2009). They argued that research can have more than one purpose depending in the
nature of examination that may change over time (Robson, 2011; Yin, 2009).
Accordingly, this research focuses on describing and explaining the relationships between
variables to understand the phenomenon that is being considered. To clarify this study
purpose, the proposed theoretical model that guided this research is presented in Figure
(4.1). As illustrates by the study model leadership effectiveness (group cohesion, group
relationship conflict and affective commitment to the organisation) were hypothesised to
be affected by leadership behaviours (charismatic leadership behaviours, ethical
leadership behaviours). It was hypothesised also that social identity in diverse workgroups
(followers‟ social identity and leadership prototypes) moderating the relationship between
leadership and leader effectiveness. The term „moderator‟ is used to describe a variable
that strengthens the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable (Cho et
al., 2008).
Figure (4.1): Study Model
92
4.3. Research Design and Methodological Fit
The research design is the plan or overall scheme applied to accomplish research
objectives and to answer a research question. After a comprehensive literature review,
the researcher chose a research design that would achieve a high methodological fit
(Edmondson and McManus, 2007). Therefore, the selection of a paradigm has
significant consequences for the selection of a research strategy and the collection and
analysis of data. Accordingly, the choice of a research design should be appropriate to
the subject under study (Hair et al., 2011).
An essential principle when conducting research is that the methods adopted should be
appropriate to the theoretical proposition being made regarding the phenomenon under
study. More broadly, the concept is described as ensuring „methodological fit‟
(Edmonson and McManus, 2007). According to Edmondson and McManus (2007)
inaccuracy when choosing a suitable methodology creates problems that reduce the
efficiency of the research results and conclusion. In their theoretical article on
methodological fit in organisational research, they indicate that there are four key
elements of a field project: the research question, prior work, the research design and its
contribution to literature. The first element focuses on the topic to be studied and
condenses the area of study so that it is of a logical and achievable size. The researcher
focuses on what is significant both theoretically and practically and then presents this
information in the form of a question to be answered. The second element (prior work)
requires the selection of suitable literature, empirical research and theories that are
relevant to the subject matter. Prior work also provides information on the other areas of
research covered, such as recognising unresolved questions, unexplored areas and
controversial areas of research. The third element pertains to research design and deals
with the different types of information that need to be collected, the methodology, and
the various analytical procedures required to ensure appropriate correlation of the
information. The last element mentioned by Edmondson and McManus is the
contribution to literature, which includes the theories that have been developed through
new ideas that inform and challenge prior research; these may lead to a deeper
awareness of a phenomenon.
93
Based on these four elements, are three types of research: nascent, intermediate and
mature. The table below shows the three types of Methodological Fit in field Research.
Table (4-1) three types of Methodological Fit in field Research
State of prior theory
and research Nascent Intermediate Mature
Research questions Open-ended inquiry
about a phenomenon
of interest
Proposed
relationships between
new and established
constructs
Focused questions
and/or hypotheses
relating to existing
constructs
Type of data
collected
Qualitative, initially
open ended data that
needs to be
interpreted for
meaning
Hybrid (both
qualitative and
quantitative)
Quantitative data;
focused measures
where extent or
amount is meaningful
Illustrative methods
for data collection
Interviews;
observations;
obtaining documents
or other materials
from field sites
relevant to the
phenomena being
investigated
Interviews;
observations; surveys;
obtaining material
from field sites
relevant to the issue
of interest
Surveys; interviews
of observations
designed to be
systematically coded
and quantified;
obtaining data from
field sites that
measure the extent or
quantity of salient
constructs
Constructs and
measures
Typically new
constructs, few
formal measures
Typically one or more
new constructs and/or
new measures
Typically relying
heavily on existing
constructs and
measures
Goal of data analyses Pattern identification Preliminary of
exploratory testing of
new propositions
and/or new constructs
Formal hypothesis
testing
Data analysis
methods
Thematic content
analysis coding for
evidence of
Content analysis,
exploratory statistics,
and preliminary tests
Statistical inference,
standard statistical
analyses
94
constructs
Theoretical
contribution
A suggestive theory,
often an invitation for
further work on the
issue or set of issues
opened up by the
study
A provisional theory,
often one that
integrates previously
separate bodies of
work
A supported theory
that may add
specificity, new
mechanisms, or new
boundaries to existing
theories
Source: Edmondson and McManus (2007:1160)
The research undertaken here can be categorised as mature research as it focuses on
questions and/or hypotheses related to existing constructs (here: leader Conger and
Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, identification, leader
prototypicality, team relation conflict, affective commitment and team cohesion).
The current research design includes four stages. The first stage is reviewing the related
theories and previous studies in this field. Based on the gap in the literature review the
study objectives and hypotheses were then formulated. To test the study hypotheses the
research instruments were established, the research method was identified in the final
stage and the data was analysed. The results based on analysing the data were then
discussed followed by recommendations for future research Figure (4-2) illustrates the
research design.
95
Figure (4.2) Research Design
Produced for the purpose of this research
The approach used here is also described as following a “classical” research paradigm,
as will be explained further in the next section.
4.4. Research Philosophy (Paradigm)
In the context of research methodology, the term „paradigm‟ according to Hammersley
(2007:1) “has also come to mean a set of philosophical assumptions about the
phenomena to be studied, about how they can be understood, and even about the proper
purpose and product of research”. There are two principal research paradigms used in
business research, namely, the positivistic and a phenomenological/ interpretivism
paradigm. According to Bryman and Bell, positivism is “an epistemological position
that advocates the application of the methods of the natural sciences to the study of
96
social reality and beyond” (2007:155). The role of positivism as stated by Anderson
(2004) resides in searching for facts in terms of clarifying the relationship between
variables before identifying a data collection pattern through statistical approaches as
followed in quantitative research procedures. According to Collis and Hussey (2003),
the positivistic approach concentrates on facts and the causes of social events, paying
modest respect to the subjective state of the individual.
There are several practical implications of positivism for the researcher, these assume
the researcher is completely independent from what is being observed. Accordingly, the
criteria, which guides the choice of what is being studied, are objective and not
influenced by personal beliefs and interests. Therefore, it is essential to recognise causal
descriptions and the supporting rules behind constancy in human social behaviour,
constructing an initial hypothesis, and subjecting the hypotheses developed to deductive
examinations through sensible observations, and as a consequence breaking down
concepts so that facts can be measured quantitatively. Further, by enhancing
understanding by restricting problems to their simplest potential components, by
choosing a sufficient size for samples to allow for generalisation regarding any
observation of consistency in human social behaviour, and seeking comparisons over a
cross-sectional analysis of samples (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2009:
Collis and Hassey, 2009).
In contrast, the interpretivism paradigm is based on the assumption that the social world
of business and management, and other forms of human endeavour, are far too complex
to lend themselves to being theorised according to definitive laws in the same way as
the physical sciences. This approach recommends that the researcher should understand
the differences between individuals as social actors (Collis and Hussey, 2009; Blaxter et
al., 2006; Bryman and Bell, 2007). From this perspective, the individual is considered to
be a key element in any explanation of human conduct, associated with external root
fundamental regulations. Therefore, the researcher‟s primary mission involves bringing
to light meaning, rather than collecting facts and measuring how often particular
patterns occur. In addition phenomenological practical research implications consist of
the researcher‟s involvement in the observation; the ideas and theories developed rely
on the analysis of gathered data; the complicated examination of the data; creating
97
various settings based on the phenomena requiring multiple methods; and small samples
of intensive investigation over time and analysis (Easterby-Smith et. al., 1991). The
interpretative approach seems to be appropriate for obtaining rich qualitative data that is
relevant to the objectives set, and is in keeping with the context of the research (Bryman
and Bell, 2007). Interpretivism is similar to Weber‟s work, which recognises sociology
as a branch of knowledge which is aimed at an interpretative comprehension of action in
order to understand its cause and its effects (1921). The interpretivist approach
emphasises the subjective aspects of human activity by focusing on meaning instead of
the measurement of social event. There is therefore no right or wrong paradigm, rather,
a particular paradigm is more appropriate to a specific study than any other. The
features of the two approaches are presented in the table below.
Table (4-2): Positivist versus Interpretivist Paradigms
Positivist principles Interpretivist principles
Work from scientific principles
Analyse phenomena in terms of variables
Start with theory and test/refine theory with
data
Data should be collected „dispassionately‟
A highly structured research process should be
used.
Theories can be used to predict future
relationships and behaviours.
Quantitative data is preferred
The validity and reliability of data is
important for formulating generalisable
conclusions.
Knowledge is constructed by human
beings as they make sense of their
environment.
Analyse phenomena in terms of issues.
Researchers cannot be wholly
dispassionate-they are involved and
will influence situations to varying
degrees (often unintentionally).
Flexibility may be required to allow
the emphasis of the research to change
as the process unfolds
Qualitative data is preferred
Generating „rich‟ data is as important
as (or more important than) the ability
to generalise.
Source: Anderson (2004: 42)
98
The difference between these paradigms, as stated by Gill et al., (2010), is their
emphasis upon deduction (testing theory) as opposed to induction (structuring theory)
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). In the deductive approach, hypotheses are developed based on
theory, and the research strategy is designed to test the hypothesis, which is achieved by
establishing a cause and effect relationship between two or more variables (Saunders et
al., 2009; Collis and Hussey, 2009; Gill et al., 2010). Conversely, the inductive
approach begins with data, and then develops an empirical generalisation that describes
patterns of data and seeks to identify or develop a theoretical proposition that is
consistent with such patterns (Saunders et al., 2009; Gill et al., 2010).
4.5. Research Methods
In social sciences research, two major approaches can be differentiated: the qualitative
and the quantitative approach. This section discusses the nature of each approach in
order to justify their relevance to this research. However, these approaches are not
mutually exclusive (as with deductive and inductive paradigms) and can be combined
effectively to produce more comprehensive results.
Qualitative research is built on the intensive study of as many features as possible of a
small phenomenon. Researchers following this approach seek understanding through
inductive analysis, moving from specific observation to general. Collis and Hussey
(2009) argue that qualitative methods are often related to the phenomenological
position. The main aim of the qualitative approach is therefore to provide a detailed
description of the social setting being investigated, rather than being based on statistical
generalisation (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Collis and Hussey (2009) argue that the reason
behind using a qualitative approach is that it helps to develop a deeper understanding of
social and human activities by examining and reflecting individuals‟ perceptions. The
nature of this style of research is often exploratory and typically involves a small
number of people being interviewed in-depth (Creswell, 2004). Qualitative research, in
fact, concentrates on understanding phenomena and describing events meaning and
implications (Saunders et al., 2009). In addition, the qualitative approach acts as a
useful planning tool when following quantitative approach. Bryman and Bell (2007)
claimed that criticism of subjectivity as qualitative analysis is practical in nature; data
99
can be used to create a reality that the researcher then desires to obtain. Additionally, a
lack of accurate experimental manipulation and determinism is often highlighted as
qualitative data collection and analysis. These features result in a restriction of their
application to particular types of research.
In contrast, quantitative research is built on a numerical measurement of specific
characteristics relation to a phenomenon. Quantitative approaches employ deductive
logic, moving from the general to the specific. The tools used to carry out quantitative
research tend to be surveys and questionnaires (Coombes, 2001). It is a very structured
approach and is most often focused on objectivity, generalisability and reliability (Collis
and Hussey, 2009). The key advantage of the quantitative approach, therefore, is that it
is based on fact and reliable data that enables researchers to generalise their findings to
the population from which the sample has been drawn. The quantitative researcher aims
to obtain data to explain events and situations in terms of a cause and effect
relationship; predicting or explaining a relationship by comparing or relating several
variables under investigation (Creswell, 2004; Eldabi et al., 2002). Subsequently, facts
can be comprehended in a factual sense (Easterby- Smith et al., 2008). As stated by
Anderson (2004) a significant reason for the use of quantitative data is to answer
research questions, through defining a recent condition, which enables the reader to
make more sense of statistical terms such as, frequency, central tendency, and
dispersion. She added that acquisition of this statistical data enables the researcher to
make comparisons between what has been found in other previous studies and thus can
illustrate their study‟s contribution. Another advantage of the quantitative approach is
its flexibility when handling data, regarding comparative analysis, statistical analysis,
and repeatability of data collection, with the intention of confirming reliability
(Partington, 2002). On the other hand, a most important weakness with this approach is
that it is not possible to investigate every area in depth simultaneously, since
information is standardised and therefore does not afford any opportunity for
interpretation or a new perspective (Robson, 2002).
In spite of the differences between quantitative and qualitative approach, the core of the
quantitative-qualitative dispute is in reality philosophical, not methodological.
Philosophical suppositions or a theoretical paradigm about the nature of reality are vital
100
to understanding in general perspective upon which a study is designed and carried out
(Krauss, 2005).
4.6. Research Strategy-Survey
Research strategy is defined as a general plan of how the researcher will go about
answering research questions and meeting their research objectives (Saunders et al.,
2009, p.141). Robson (2002) defines strategy as the general approach taken in an
enquiry. He further distinguishes between three main strategies, namely experiments,
surveys and case studies. Experimental strategy measures the effect when manipulating
one variable with another variable, and is usually related to the natural sciences,
although it features strongly in social science research, especially psychology. On the
other hand, case study strategy requires the development of intensive, detailed
knowledge about a single case, or a small number of related cases, and is usually
appropriate for exploratory work (Yin, 2003). Meanwhile, survey strategy is the
collection of information in a standardised form from groups of participants, and is
usually associated with a deductive approach (Robson, 2002). Other scholars comment
that surveys are used by researchers in management research as they represent a popular
strategy that allows for the collection of large amounts of data from a wide population
in an economical way. Using a survey approach allows the researcher more control over
the research process (Oppenheim, 1997; Easterby-Smith et. al. 2008). Surveys with a
suitable sample may provide generalisable results; they enable the researcher to make
comparisons by repeating the survey at different times or in distinct situations, which is
regarded as an important advantage of surveys. With regards to response time, a survey
with a good reply rate may allow the acquisition of a great deal of data quickly (Blaxter,
Hughes and Tight, 2006).
4.7. Data Gathering Methods:
Gathering data is the key activity involved in a research project; it should be directed by
the research objectives, and influenced by the environmental factors that the researchers
have investigated. In this research, the data gathering instrument (questionnaire) was
selected based on the research philosophy (paradigm) and objectives. Within a survey
strategy, the data collection methods available include questionnaires, interviews and
101
participant observation. There is no single best way for collecting data as the choice is
always subjective and based on the needs of the researcher and the research questions to
be answered (Saunders et al., 2009). The following section discusses and evaluates the
data gathering instruments used in this research.
4.8. Data Gathering Instruments Adopted in this Research- Questionnaire
A questionnaire according to Collies and Hussey (2003) can be used to gather data,
“When the issues which arise are likely to be confidential and sensitive and give
respondents more time to consider their answers” (p.281). The questionnaire survey, as
defined by McDaniel and Gates (2002), is comprised of a set of questions designed to
generate the evidence necessary to accomplish the objectives of the research study. It is
a method of getting answers to the research questions based on designing specific
questions to be answered by the research participants (Robson, 2004 and Bryman,
2004). Questionnaires as a survey method may be viewed as a comparatively simple
and uncomplicated means of examining participants‟ attitudes, values, beliefs and
motives. When the survey includes sensitive issues, a questionnaire affords a high level
of confidentiality and anonymity (Robson, 2004). Although questionnaires may be
inexpensive to administer compared to other research methods, they are expensive in
terms of design time spent and interpretation (Bryman, 2004). Additionally
questionnaires as have some drawbacks, such as the possibility of a low response rate,
especially when respondents have no special interest in the subject of the questionnaire,
difficulty in controlling who completes the questionnaire, lack of any opportunity to
check the accuracy of the answers or clarify ambiguous answers; also respondents may
have difficulties with reading and there may be missing data. There is always a
likelihood that questionnaire validity will be very low (Gillham, 2000; Neuman, 2004;
Robson, 2004; Blaxter, et al., 2006). Primary data requires the researcher to gather
information independently with a specific purpose in mind.
A questionnaire contains two types of question: closed-ended and open-ended, both of
which have advantages and disadvantages. In closed-ended question, respondents are
offered a set of answers and asked to tick the one that most closely represents their
views. Closed-ended questions are easy to ask and quick to answer; they require no
writing on the part of the respondent, and their analysis is straightforward.
102
4.9. The Rationale for Choice of the Methodology Used in the Study
In this study the choice of research approach was determined by the research aim and
objectives. As mentioned previously (in chapters one and three) this study examines the
role of leadership behaviour and effectively leading culturally diverse workplaces in
Saudi Arabia by reducing internal conflict, increasing internal cohesion and attaining
organisational commitment and the moderating role of social identity theory.
As discussed in chapter three, prior theories have been reviewed by the researcher.
Therefore, it is applicable to generate the research hypotheses based on the available
literature. This is something achievable through a deductive approach; thus, a deductive
research paradigm fits this study. At the same time, this study emphasises measurable
outcomes rather than a process. This is appropriate to measure through a quantitative
approach. Additionally, a number of previous researchers in the leadership field have
utilised the quantitative approach. Jackson and Parry (2008) and Ospina et al. (2004)
stated that leadership research has long been regarded as related mainly to a quantitative
research tradition that is epistemologically steered mostly by positivistic assumptions
and preferences. In the case of this study the hypotheses are prescribed according to
theories formulated to describe behaviours associated with leadership and social
identity. For the data gathering a paper based questionnaire has been employed,
following a survey strategy, to test the study hypotheses. The researcher chose the
questionnaire survey method to collect quantitative data. The questionnaire will allow
the „what‟ questions in this research (such as the relationship between leadership
behaviour and relation conflict) to be answered; similar to many previous research
studies into leadership. According to Bryman (2011) leadership is an area of research
that has been primarily related to a specific method of data collection such as
questionnaire. This point of view was supported by Hunter et al. (2007) and Friedrich et
al. (2009) who argued that the questionnaire-based method can be considered as a
„typical leadership study‟. Additionally Antonakis et al. (2004: 55) stated that “Because
the vast majority of research that is conducted in the leadership domain is quantitative
in nature and because theory enable tested appropriately only with quantitative
method...”. Therefore, this research has followed this method by implementing the
quantitative approach. Since this search is based primarily on positivist philosophy and
builds on existing theories of leadership and social identity.
103
4.10. Sample Design and Population
The sample design refers to the process of selecting a part of the population of interest
to represent the whole of that population. According to Bryman and Bell (2007), there
are two types of samples the probability and the non probability samples. A probability
sample is characterised by random selection, whereas a non-probability sample is not
random. A non-probability sample is commonly preferred because of its convenience
(Krathwohl, 1997). There are three different types of non-probability samples;
convenience sampling, purposive sampling and quota sampling (Robson, 2002). In this
study the target population is the employees and managers in the multi-national
company (SABIC) in Saudi Arabia. The selection of this company was based on the fact
that it has a large numbers of employees with diverse backgrounds. In this study, non-
probability sampling was used in order to achieve adequate representation. Using non-
probability sampling, cluster sampling techniques were also selected. For the first
sample, a nonprobability purposive sampling technique was used to locate respondents;
this involved identifying a team with a high level of cultural diversity. It was not the
study's objective to generalise findings to a larger population, but rather to obtain
samples of a culturally diverse team who would complete the study questionnaire in
order to allow the researcher to analysis the relationship between leadership behaviour
and leader‟s effectiveness and to examing the moderating impact of social identity on
these relationships. Probability sampling techniques were not considered viable due to
the need for the sample group to exhibit certain characterstics (see below). Instead
purposive sampling involves judgements being made by researchers regarding which
characteristics of the target population should be included in the sample (Altinay and
Wang, 2009).
The foreign workers at SABIC vary from one department to another, thus, the
researcher with assistance of Director of Strategic Workforce Planning-Organisational
Development Department, deliberately selected the department with the highest number
of multinational employees, because they are likely to represent instances that are likely
to produce the most valuable data to the area being researched (Denscombe, 2010). The
second sample of the employees within the chosen team was convenience based,
104
because there was no up dated list of all employees under each team leader in SABIC.
Convenience sampling enabled the researcher to select the most available persons to act
as respondents. Thus, the employees were selected because they are seen as instances
that are likely to produce the most valuable data in the area. However, it is therefore
essential to acknowledge the potential drawbacks associated with such a sampling
strategy; these are a greater possibility for selection bias, limited potential to generalise
from the sample to the wider population, as the researcher‟s choices are unlikely to be
fully objective (Tansey, 2007; Wilson, 2009).
4.11. Determining Sample Size
The sample size is a significant characteristic with any empirical study in which the goal
is to make assumptions about a population based on a sample. Indeed, the sample size
used in the study was determined based on the data collection figures, and the need to
obtain sufficient statistical power (Saunders et al., 2009). According to Saunders et al.
(2009, p. 217) “the larger your sample‟s size the lower the likely error in generalising to
the population”; for this reason, it was determined to work with categorical data to
complement the variable population of SABIC. In this study the researcher will set the
alpha level a priori at .05 which indicates the level of risk; the researcher is willing to
take the risk that the true margin of error may exceed the acceptable margin of error.
The P value 0.05 will be adopted as the universally accepted value for statistical
significance. This means that there is a 5% chance of no significant difference (and a
95% chance that the findings are significantly different) (Field, 2009).
The general equation for sample size in all populations, both large and small, is given
by (Red and Parker, 2005) as:
Where Cρ = confidence interval in terms of preparation
Zα = Z score for various levels of confidence (α)
ρ = the true proportion
N= study population
105
To proceed with the calculation of the Sample sizes (n), the value of Zα, Cρ and ρ must
be established. Zα, is set at 1.96 for the 95 percent level of confidence or 2.575 for 99
percent. The confidence interval Cρ is typically set to not exceed 10 percent and is more
frequently set in the 3 to 5 percent range, depending on the specific degree of accuracy
to which the findings must conform. The true proportion (ρ) is unknown and is
estimated according to the proportion that would result in the highest sampling size at ρ
=.5
Thus by applying this equation to the study, the population of SABIC employees (N=
12000), the sample size needed will be:
n = 376
And the population of team leaders in SABIC (N= 135), the sample size needed will be
n =100
Thus, the sample size decision for the population size (12000, SABIC employees and
135 team leaders), was made up of 376 employees and 100 leaders. In order to test the
hypotheses of the study, data from the two samples was collected. A first sample of
(500) employees and a second sample of (100) managers was identified from this
population, to enable the use of appropriate data collection methods, ensuring that the
samples would a good representation of the entire population.
4.12. Data Analysis Methods Adopted in this Thesis
As the research adopts a positivist approach, data analysis is accordingly driven
according to quantitative strands. The main analysis of quantitative data is achieved by
using the SPSS package (version 18). There are various statistical methods employed
such as Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), frequency,
percentage, arithmetic mean, standard deviation and the Pearson Correlation.
106
To test the study hypotheses Multi Level Modelling has been selected as the main
analytical technique testing for the model using aggregate data to achieve a higher level
of analysis (aggregating a group of followers‟ and their ratings of their leader). In recent
years, scholars investigating scenarios involving organisational behaviour have
recognised the value of the multilevel modelling of data (e. g. Goldstein, 2010; Hitt,
2007). Multilevel modelling is a technique that seeks to allow for hypothetical tests at
the group level. This technique is crucial for detecting a moderating effect at group
level. According to the special issue of Leadership Quarterly (2002, vol. 13 No.1),
analysing data at the individual level using regression techniques has so far failed to
detect the effects of moderation; since they have generally not operated at the individual
level of analysis (Bliese, Halverson and Schriesheim, 2002). Thus, this study considers
the level of analysis using multilevel modelling by aggregating team members to their
leaders. Antonakis, et al. (2004) emphasised that “consideration of the boundary
condition of levels regarding leadership theories leads to better theories that are more
applicable to practice” (p 64).
4.13. Instrumentation and Measures
In the light of the discussion in the previous section, questionnaires are the researcher‟s
tool for collecting data from both employees and managers in the private sector in Saudi
Arabia (SABIC). In this study, two samples are drawn, namely, the employees and
managers group. Therefore, two questionnaires (employees‟ questionnaire and mangers‟
questionnaire) have to be presented. The employee‟s questionnaire includes six
sections: (1) a self-report segment for collecting demographic information from the
respondent (2) the Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership behaviours Questionnaire,
(3) ethical Leadership, (4) team identity, (5) leader prototypicality and (6) follower‟s
affective commitment to the organisation. While the managers‟ questionnaire includes
three sections: (1) a self-report segment was utilised to collect demographic information
about the respondents, (2) internal conflict within the group and (3) group cohesion.
Employee Questionnaire
Demographic variables: this section details the demographic characteristics of
participant managers for the following: years worked under current direct manager, age
107
group, level of education, years worked in this organisation and the employee‟s
nationality.
The Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership Questionnaire (C-K Scale) has been
developed to measure leadership behaviours using the 6 dimensions of charismatic
leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1998) (see appendix A). The questionnaire is
comprised of the following dimensions; (a) the first factor contains seven items that
reflect sensitivity to the environment and measure the leader‟s assessment of the
external and internal environment; (b) the second factor contains six items reflecting
strategic vision and articulation measures associated with the leader‟s ability to develop
sound strategic goals; (c) the third factor contains three items which reflect sensitivity to
measures associated with member needs, the leader‟s ability to show sensitivity to the
needs and feelings of the organisational members; (d) the fourth factor contains four
items reflecting personal risk measures the leader‟s drive to pursue organisational
objectives even when they involve considerable self-sacrifice and personal risk; and (e)
the fifth factor contains three items that reflect unconventional behavioural measures
that reflect a leader‟s tendency to follow entrepreneurial and risky courses of action to
achieve organisational goals. The final factor contains two items that reflect the failure
to maintain status quo behavioural measures, and leader‟s action orientation away from
the maintenance of the status quo.
The C-K questionnaire consists of 25 questions, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 =
very uncharacteristic to 6 = very characteristic. Each dimension includes between 2 and
7 statements, which measure the perceptions of leadership behaviours as observed by
followers. Conger and Kanungo (1998) conducted six empirical studies using diverse
samples from various companies in Canada, India, and the United States in order to
establish the reliability and validity of the perceived leadership behaviours measured,
and the impact of charismatic leadership on subordinates. Past research has shown
internal consistencies (Cronbach‟s alpha) ranging from (0.6 to 0.84) across the six
dimensions. Test-retest reliabilities ranged from 0.69 to 0.84, which is regarded as an
acceptable reliability coefficient according to George and Mallery (2003). A
confirmatory factor analysis of the scale showed a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of (0.94)
for the six-dimensional model. Divergent validity evidence has also shown that the
measure was conceptually independent from task-oriented leadership, which indicates a
108
sound measurement for charismatic leadership.
Perceptions of leader ethicality were measured using items employed on a nine-item
managerial morality scale (Masud, 2005). The items on the original scale were intended
to be answered by leaders. In this study the scale was answered by followers to avoid
self reporting, which may lead to bias. This is in accordance with Cummings et al.
(2008), who suggest that the observation of leaders‟ styles and behaviours is more valid
when based on the reports of others. Furthermore, Athore stated that social desirability
response bias can occur when leaders give self-reports, meaning those of their followers
are likely to be more accurate (Polit, et al., 2004; Xin, et al., 2002).
The scale assessed three dimensions of managerial morality; honesty, integrity, and
justice. Based on previous research, the average coefficient alpha value across the three
dimensions was 0.61, which is slightly below the conventionally accepted value of 0.70
(George and Mallery, 2003). The honesty subscale demonstrated a reliability of alpha =
0.71. In addition, results from the confirmatory factor analysis validated the three-
dimensional model with a GFI value of 0.97. All items were rated on a seven-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Team Identification: the study team identification was measured using items employed
based on seven-items from the grid form of the identification questionnaire (van Dick et
al., 2004). All items were rated on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = is not
at all true for me to 6 = is totally true for me. Van Dick et al.‟s (2004) study yielded a
Cronbach‟s alpha of .83.
Leader prototypicality: participants were asked to respond to six-items derived from the
work of van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005). Participants‟ responses were
recorded on a six-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree,
and their study yielded a Cronbach‟s alpha of (.92). The internal consistency of the six
items was very high, α = .89 in a later similar study by Giessner and van Knippenberg
(2008).
109
Affective Commitment was measured using an eight-item scale designed to assess
positive feelings of attachment to, and involvement in, an organisation. The affective
Commitment Scale (ACS) was created by Meyer and Allen (1993) and demonstrated a
coefficient alpha value of 0.87. Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that test-retest
reliabilities for ACS have been consistently above 0.70. All items are rated on a seven-
point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Leader Questionnaire
The relationship conflict and group cohesion were rated by team leaders because they
should be the most knowledgeable team members in this respect.
Demographic variables
This section details the demographic characteristics of participating managers for the
following: years worked in this organisation, age group, level of education, years
worked in this organisation and the manager‟s nationality.
The Intergroup Conflict Scale Items Relationship conflict will be measured using
items from Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) (Jehn, 1995). All items are rated on a five-
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1= “none” to 5= “a great deal”.
Group Cohesion Group cohesiveness was measured based on line managers‟
perceptions of cohesiveness in their groups using the six-item scale presented in the
study by Podsakoff and their colleagues (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff,
Niehoff, et al., 1993) indicated that the scale possesses good psychometric properties,
with reliability ranging from a low of .91 to a high of .93, across three different
samples. Respondents were asked to use a seven-point scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree” to report on the perceived level of trust and cooperation
among group members.
4.14. Human Participants and Ethical Precautions
This study implements all the requirements outlined by the Portsmouth University‟
Ethical Review Committee so as to protect human participants (see Ethical Review
110
Checklist appendix D). Furthermore, permission was obtained from the head manger at
SABIC to distribute the questionnaires (appendix C). The participants were assured that
the application of the survey would be anonymous as described in the information sheet
stapled to the front of the questionnaire (appendix A). The information sheet informs all
the participants of the study aims and confirms their fulfilment with the informed
consent policy as stated by the Ethical Review Committee (ERC). The subject‟s
signature is not required on the information sheet, because according to the ERC,
returning a completed questionnaire denotes consent. Furthermore, no information from
the questionnaires will be exchanged or shared by the researchers, in addition to the
demographics data in section (I), so that they cannot be recognised from it. All
completed questionnaires will be stored in folders by the researcher. All folders
containing the questionnaires will be kept in the researcher‟s filing cabinet, which will
be locked for further security.
The research is conducted with the principle of advancing the literature on leadership
behaviours in leading culturally diverse workplaces, and thus no conflict of interest or
personal bias will influence the study.
4.15. Pilot Study Survey Population and Sample Size
Pilot studies deemed to be a crucial step in the research process. They enable the
researcher to evaluate the study instrument‟ validity and the expected reliability of the
data collected. Additionally, this helps the researcher to ensure that the data collected
answers the research question. The researcher therefore employed a pilot study before
the main study was conducted. One of the advantages of conducting a pilot study is that
it might allow for an advance warning regarding what research procedures may not have
been followed or whether proposed methods or instruments are inappropriate or too
complicated (van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001). The results from the pilot studies are
intended to assist the researcher to reconsider any problematic aspects associated with
the main questionnaires. The primary purpose of the pilot sample was to select and
finalise the items to be incorporated in the study instrument and used in the validation
study. Factor analysis, item-total correlations, scale reliability and assessment of
whether the research procedure is realistic and workable follow the completion of a
pilot study.
111
A total of 70 respondents, both leaders and their followers, from six multicultural
organisations in Portsmouth, UK participated in the pilot study. The pilot sample group
consisted of 20 leaders and 50 employees.
Employees Background Information (pilot study)
Those participants‟ who reported having served with their current employer for between
5 and 10 years were 30%; those who had worked for them for 3 to 5 years were 22.5%.
Whereas the percentage who had been with their current direct manager for 5 years or
more was 37.5% followed by 27.5% between 3years and 5 years. A majority of the
respondents held bachelor‟s degrees as their highest qualification (52.5%) and 35%
were master‟s degree holders. The larger proportions of respondents were aged from 26-
35 years (37.5%), with an equal percentage aged from 36-45 years.
Managers Background Information (pilot study)
Participants indicating that they had served in their current company for between ten
and 20 years comprised 36.4%, whereas the percentage of managers who reported that
they had served in their current company from between 1 year and less than 3 years and
from 3 years to less than 5 years was equal, at 18.2%. The manager‟s sample included
participants ranging in age from 26 to 35 years, at 45%, followed by the age group
between 36 and 45 years at 35.8%. The majority of respondents having master‟ degrees
were 54.5% followed by those who had completed some college work at 27.3% whereas
the lowest percentage was PhD holders (9.1%).
4.16. Validity and Reliability Tests and Inter-correlation among Variables
This section will examine the validity and reliability of the study measurements. In the
present study, confirmatory factor analyses have been conducted to test factorial validity
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out for each of the scales
individually. This analysis aimed to confirm that all the scale items were loaded based
on the particular factors identified in previous studies. According to Field (2009), factor
112
analysis recognises which variables seem to cluster together in meaningful way.
Additionally, Field (2009) emphasised the importance of checking scale reliability after
validating a questionnaire using factor analysis. Whereas reliability means that the
questionnaire should consistently reflect the construct that it is measuring. This means
that, the participant should obtain the same score on a questionnaire even if it is
completed at different points in time (Green and Salkind, 2008). According to Key
(1997) reliability is estimated in one of four ways: (a) internal consistency which is
based on the correlation among the variables comprising the test, such as Cronbach‟s
alpha; (b) Split-half reliability which is also based on the correlation of three equivalent
forms of the scale, such as the Spearman-Brown coefficient; (c) test-retest reliability
which centres on the correlation between two (or more) administrations of the same
item, scale, or instrument for different times, locations, or populations, when the two
administrations do not differ in the ordering of relevant variables, such as the
Spearman-Brown coefficient; (d) inter-rater reliability, based on the correlation of
scores between/among two or more raters who rate the same item, scale, or instrument,
such as intra-class correlation.
This study uses an internal consistency method which provides a unique estimate of
reliability for the administration of the given test. The most popular internal consistency
reliability estimate is given by Cronbach‟s alpha “the reliability coefficient”, which was
popularised in 1951 by Cronbach, based on work in the 1940s with Guttman and others
and it is the most common estimate of internal consistency of items in a scale (Feldt et
al., 1987; Key, 1997). Some researchers suggested 0.7 as the accepted cut-off (Hair, et
al. (2002), others regarded a value of more than 0.6 to be satisfactory (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994).
Furthermore, the corrected item-total correlation was utilised (inter-correlation). In
other words, this study examined the correlations of each item‟s score with the total
scale score in order to investigate whether the items measured the same construct. This
method usually subtracts each item‟s score from the total score to eliminate a false part-
whole correlation. Each item‟s score is then compared with the total score corrected,
although there is no universally agreed cut-off point, the most widely adopted threshold
is 0.3 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Furthermore, if an item has a negative „corrected
113
item-total correlation coefficient‟, then it is eliminated from further consideration.
Additionally, if the correlation is low for an item, this means that it is not measuring the
same information that the rest of the scale is trying to measure (Robson, 2011; Field,
2009). The following discussion provides the results of the confirmatory factor analysis.
4.17. Factor Analyses
Before testing the hypotheses, the researcher devised a means of testing whether the tool
measured the construct under investigation in a way that was consistent with the
researcher‟s understanding. Confirmatory techniques generally are most effective when
developed in following successful testing in the form of prior exploratory analyses
(Field, 2009). Thus, the researcher conducted seven factor analyses (follower
perception of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, leader prototypicality, team
identity, affective organisational commitment, and group relationship conflict and group
cohesion). Most widely used among these is Maximum Likelihood (ML). The primary
advantage of ML is that it allows for the computation of a wide range of indexes
measuring the goodness of fit of the model. ML also permits statistical significance
testing of factor lodgings and correlations among factors and the computation of
confidence intervals for these parameters (Cudeck and O‟Dell, 1994). The primary
limitation of ML estimation is its assumption of multivariate normality. When this
assumption is severely violated, the procedure can produce distorted results (Curran,
West and Finch, 1996; Hu, Bentler and Kano, 1992). MLF generates a chi-square
goodness-of-fit test. A goodness-of-fit index is used to test how well the model fits,
ranging from the value of this index derived from 1.0- 5.0. Chi square goodness-of-fit
ratio should be close to one, a “good fit” is achieved when the reduced chi-square equals
one.
The decision was made to consider eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and to eliminate the
items with loadings less than 0.30 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). As stated by (Field,
2009) if the deletion of an item increases Cronbach‟s then this means that the deletion
of that item improves reliability. Therefore, any items that result in substantially greater
values than average may need to be deleted from the scale to improve its reliability. The
following part will discuss the validity and reliability of the pilot study.
114
Factor analyses for employee’s questionnaire (pilot study)
To confirm the reliability and validity of scales incorporated in the survey instrument
confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis were applied to the pilot study
survey.
The first factor analysis included all 25 items associated with the six hypothesised
dimensions of the employees‟ perceptions of charismatic leadership. The first stage is to
rotate a six-factor solution. To conduct a factor analysis with six rotated factors. The
factor analyses yielded six-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with the eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 44.321 of the variance. Results from this factor analysis
showed positive factor loadings for charismatic leadership behaviours ranging from
.375 to .935, the eighteenth item is the weakest loading in this scale .375. The variable‟s
reliability coefficient did not change significantly when this item was removed.
Additionally, and based on its theoretical appeal (as existing scale with high validity
and reliability), this item was retained. Therefore all items remained in the final data
analysis. The factors and items are presented in Table 4-3.
Table (4-3): Rotated Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 25-item Charismatic
Leadership Scale (pilot study)
Item
Factor loading ( α=.852)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
1. My line manager influences others
by developing mutual liking and
respect. (SMN)
.622 .273 .281 .037 -.113 .110
2. My line manager shows sensitivity for
the needs and feelings of the other
members in the organisation. (SMN)
.705 .251 .258 -.158 .016 .068
3. My line manager often expresses
personal concern for the needs and
feelings of other members of the
organisation. (SMN)
.519. 366 .125 .375 .415 -.014
4. My line manager readily recognises
barriers/forces within the organisation
that may block or hinder achievement
of his/her goals. (SE)
.101 .899 .092 .100 -.116 -.023
5. My line manager readily recognises
new environmental opportunities .465 .690 .191 .154 .221 .007
115
Item
Factor loading ( α=.852)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
(favourable physical and social
conditions) that may facilitate
achievement or organisational
objectives. (SE)
6. My line manager readily recognises
constraints in the physical environment
(technological limitations, lack of
resources, etc.) that may stand in the
way of achieving organisational
objectives. (SE)
.440 .783 -.017 .172 .002 -.269
7. My line manager readily recognises
constraints in the organisation‟s social
and cultural environment (cultural
norms, lack of grassroots support, etc.)
that may stand in the way of achieving
organisational objectives. (SE)
.414 .686 .160 -.031 .321 .008
8. My line manager recognises the
abilities and skills of other members in
the organisation. (SE)
.133 .795 -.012 -.093 .098 -.035
9. My line manager is entrepreneurial;
seizes new opportunities in order to
achieve goals. (SE)
.178 .654 .084 .131 .099 -.392
10. My line manager recognises the
limitations of other members in the
organisation. (SE)
.366 .665 .293 .056 .182 -.084
11. My line manager engages in
unconventional behaviour in order to
achieve organisational goals. (UB)
.070 .029 .935 .322 .010 -.124
12. My line manager often exhibits very
unique behaviour that surprises other
members of the organisation. (UB)
-.070 .065 .745 .344 .120 .230
13. My line manager uses non-traditional
means to achieve organisational goals.
(UB)
.357 .091 .489 .336 -.436 -.076
14. In pursuing organisational objectives,
My line manager engages in activities
involving considerable self-sacrifice.
(PR)
.175 .497 .195 .685
-.131 .072
15. My line manager takes high personal
risks for the sake of the organisation.
(PR)
.405 .248 .272 .738 .069 .126
16. My line manager often incurs high
personal costs for the good of the
organisation. (PR)
.172 .013 .134 .822 .114 .092
17. In pursuing organisational objectives,
my line manager engages in activities
involving considerable personal risk.
(PR)
.020 .195 .343 .827 .136 .089
18. My line manager advocates following
non-risky, well-established courses of
action to achieve organisational goals.
(SQ)
.411 .064 -.015 -.029 .559 -.365
116
Item
Factor loading ( α=.852)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
19. My line manager tries to maintain the
status quo or normal way of doing
things. (SQ)
.250 .389
.106 .144 .533 -.190
20. My line manager provides inspiring
strategic and organisational goals.
(SVA)
.060 -.051 .090 .032 -.001 .375
21. My line manager is inspirational; able
to motivate by articulating effectively
the importance of what organisational
members are doing. (SVA)
.106
.309 .258 .024 .159 .763
22. My line manager consistently generates
new ideas for the future of the
organisation. (SVA)
.223 .119 .157 -.049 .331 .702
23. My line manager is an exciting public
speaker. (SVA) .309 .033 .197 .107 -.016 .677
24. My line manager appears to be a
skillful performer when presenting to a
group. (SVA)
.011
.466 .002 .097 .410 .627
25. My line manager has vision; often
brings up ideas about possibilities for
the future of the organisation. (SVA)
.326 .567 -.034 .363 .280 .600
The second factor analysis included all 6 items associated with leader prototypicality.
The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 65.900 of the variance. All the items have a high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “leader prototypicality”. The results of this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings for leadership prototypicality ranging from
0.731 to 0.908. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-4).
Table (4-4): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Leader
Prototypicality Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α = .914)
1. This team leader is a good example of the
kind of people that are members of my team.
.776
2. This team leader has very much in common
with the members of my team.
.908
3. This team leader represents what is
characteristic about the team.
.834
117
4. This team leader is very similar to the
members of my team.
.854
5. This team leader resembles the members of
my team.
.731
6. This team leader is an embodiment of our
group norms.
.753
The third factor analysis integrated all 7 items of Team Identity, producing one-factor
solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues over 1.0, accounting for 47.945 of the
variance. All items have a high loading in component one; this factor is labelled “Team
Identity”. The results of this factor analysis showed positive loading factors for team
identity, ranging from 0.462 to 0.891. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-
5).
Table (4-5): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team Identity
Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α = .839)
1. I identify myself as a member of my team. .866
2. Being a member of my team reflects my
personality well.
.891
3. I like to work for my team. .707
4. I think reluctantly of my team. (recod) .646
5. Sometimes I rather don‟t say that I am member of
the team. (recod)
.564
6. My team is positively judged by others. .603
7. I work for my team above what is absolutely
necessary.
.462
The fourth factor analysis integrated all items pertaining to Afflictive Organisational
commitment. The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion)
with eigenvalues above 1.0, accounting for 87.758 of the variance. All items have high
loading in component one; this factor is labelled “Affective Organisational
commitment”. The result of this factor analysis was a positive factor for loading the
118
affective organisational commitment range from 0.867 to .992. The factors and items
are presented in Table (4-6).
Table (4-6): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Affective
Organisational Commitment Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α = .90)
1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with
this organisation.
.915
2. I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my
own.
.867
3. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my
organisation. (recod)
.981
4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this
organisation. (4recod)
.992
5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my
organisation. (recod)
.969
6. This organisation has a great deal of personal
meaning to me.
.889
The fifth factor analysis integrated all 9 items associated with Ethical leadership. The
factor analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 39.579 of the variance. All items have a high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “ethical leadership”. The results of this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings in the Ethical leadership range from 0.353 to
0.999. The fourth item is the weakest loading in this scale .353. The variables‟
reliability coefficient did not change significantly when these items were removed.
Additionally, and based on its theoretical appeal (as existing scale with high validity
and reliability), this item is retained. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-7).
Table (4-7): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Ethical
Leadership Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α=.864)
1. My manager will find it necessary to lie in order
to get what he/she wants. (recod)
.754
119
2. To my manager, loyalty to the company is more
important than loyalty to the truth or moral
principles. (recod)
.895
3. My manager believes that, in business, promises
are made to be broken. (recod)
.780
4. When making decisions at work, my manager
will attend to all facts even those that he/she does
not want to hear about.
.353
5. If my manager knows that something is the right
thing to do, he/she will act accordingly.
.999
6. My manager‟s actions, in business, are consistent
to his/her convictions.
.714
7. When making business decisions about rewards,
my manager lets his/her feelings override the
facts. (recod)
.480
8. My manager will consider office politics rather
than strictly basing decisions on employee merit.
(recod)
.468
9. My manager will give employees rewards based
strictly on employees‟ level of competence and
achievement.
.773
4.18. Reliability for Employee’s Questionnaire (pilot study)
Reliability analysis, using a Cronbach‟s alpha for each scale indicated that the
Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.852 for the charismatic leadership scale, 0.914 for the leader
prototypicality scale, 0,839 for the team identity scale, 0.90 for the affective
organisational commitment scale and 0.864 for ethical leadership scale. The alpha
reliability of the five scales indicates good reliability. As mentioned earlier an alpha of
0.80 is considered satisfactory. Table (4-8) shows the reliability statistics for the
employee‟s questionnaire.
Table (4-8): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study)
Scale Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items
Charismatic leadership .852 25
Leader prototypicality .914 6
Team Identity .839 7
Affective organisational commitment .90 6
Ethical leadership .864 9
120
Inter-correlation between the dimensions of the employee’s questionnaire (Pilot study)
The 25-item charismatic leadership scale was correlated with measures of leader
prototypicality, team identity, affective organisational commitment and ethical
leadership as shown in Table (4-9). Overall, pilot study results showed a strong positive
correlation between all employees‟ questionnaire dimensions ranged from .324 to 0.765,
with the weakest relationship being between ethical leadership and team identity, and
the strongest relationship being between charismatic leadership and leader
prototypicality. Inter-correlations and values for all employee questionnaire subscales
were greater than 0.3, a very satisfactory outcome according to the recommendations of
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). From these findings, it can be concluded that the
constructs are deemed to have high internal consistency.
Table (4-9): Summary of inter-correlations among the Dimensions of the Employee‟s
Questionnaire (pilot study).
Measure CL LP TI AOC EL
Charismatic leadership (CTL) -
Leader prototypicality (LP) .756** -
Team Identity (TI) .465** .71** -
Affective organisational commitment (AOC) .580** .405
** .418
** -
Ethical leadership (EL) .564** .507** .324*. 489** -
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.19. Factor Analyses for Leader’s Questionnaire (Pilot Study)
The first factor analysis integrated all 5 items associated with Group relation conflict.
The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 40.826 of the variance. All items had a high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “relation conflict”. The result of this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings for Group relation conflict; ranging from 0.608
to 0.999. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-10).
121
Table (4-10): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 5-item Group Relation
Conflict Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α= .882)
1. How much emotional conflict is there among the
members of your group? (recod)
.999
2. How much anger is there among the members of
the group? (recod)
.830
3. How much personal friction is there in the group
during decisions? (recod)
.608
4. How much are personality clashes between
members of the group evident? (recod)
.795
5. How much tension is there in group during
decisions? (recod)
.776
The second factor analysis integrated all 6 items associated with Group cohesion. The
factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 49.643 of the variance. All items had a high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “Group cohesion”. The results from this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings for group relation conflict, ranged from 0.685
to 0.950. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-11).
Table (4-11): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Group Cohesion
Scale (pilot study)
Items Factors loading (α= .828)
1. There is a great deal of trust among members of my
work group.
.880
2. Members of my group work together as a team. .950
3. The members of my work group are cooperative
with each other.
.945
4. My work group members know that they can
depend on each other.
.940
5. The members of my work group stand up for each
other.
.830
6. The members of my work group regard each other
as friends.
.685
122
4.20. Reliability for Leader’s Questionnaire
The reliability of the 5-item group relation conflict scale was examined using
Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability of the full 5-item scale was 0.882.
The Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.828 for the group cohesion scale. The alpha reliability of the
two scales indicates that the scales have good reliability. An alpha of 0.80 or above is
considered satisfactory. Table (4-12) shows the reliability statistics for the employee‟s
questionnaire.
Table (4-12): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire (pilot study)
Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Group relation conflict .882 5
Group cohesion .828 6
Intercorrelations between the two managers’ scale dimensions
Table (4-13) presents correlations between the two manager‟s scale dimensions. Results
showed significant negative correlations between all manager questionnaire dimensions
(-0.515). The bivariate correlations between manager‟s questionnaire dimensions are all
significant at the 0.01 level. From these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs
are deemed to have high internal consistency.
Table (4-13): Intercorrelations between the Two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions (pilot
study)
Dimension GRC GC
Group relation conflict (GRC) 1
Group cohesion (RC) - .515** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
According to the discussions above the pilot study revealed that study‟s instruments, for
both employees and leaders have high validity and reliability, and that there is strong
inter-coloration among the questionnaires dimensions. Thus, the pilot study analysis
123
supports using the study questionnaires unrevised in the hypothetical tests. Inter-
correlations values for the two manager questionnaire subscales were -.515, a very
satisfactory outcome according to the recommendations of Nunnally and Bernstein
(1994). From these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs are deemed to have
high internal consistency.
4.21. Participants and Procedures for the Main Study
Participants and Procedures for the Main Study
Before distributing the questionnaires the researcher gave a number for each line
manager‟s questionnaire, beginning with (101), and number (1011, 1012, 1013 ...etc.)
for the employees‟ questionnaires. This means the employees are clustered with the
managers.
Human resource personnel acting as researchers coordinated and helped to identify
those teams with a variety of cultural diversity and the number of employees under each
manager. Additionally, the packet of research materials included a number of separate
envelopes that included an informed consent form, an employee questionnaire, one for
line manager, and a self-addressed reply envelope for each questionnaire, to assured the
employee that questionnaire will be received directly by the researcher and that nobody
in the organisation will see their ratings and comments. This measure should, according
to Salkind (2003), increase the response rate. The assistants were instructed to distribute
the envelopes to the managers and their employees.
Each completed questionnaire was put into a separate envelope by the participants. Each
envelope was mailed to the researcher for processing. Upon receipt of the envelopes, all
folders containing the questionnaires were kept in the researcher‟s filing cabinet, which
was locked for further security when required, the questionnaires were extracted for
data capture and analytical purposes, and were returned to their place of storage.
124
4.22. Questionnaire Response Rate:
This study relied on cluster sampling, and a purposive selection team with multicultural
members and the convenience sampling of employees currently working for (SABIC).
A total of 500 employees and 100 leaders‟ questionnaires were distributed to the sample
at SABIC headquarters in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). Each returned questionnaire was
checked thoroughly to review it for completeness and to ensure that the instructions had
been followed and to confirm that the responses were written in the proper place. There
were 351 employees‟ questionnaires and 90 leaders‟ questionnaires that were completed
and usable. A total of 457 questionnaires were returned from the participants. 5 of the
questionnaires were excluded because the respondents‟ leaders‟ questionnaires not
returned. Eleven more questionnaires were considered unusable because the respondents
had circled the same scale number for every question in the questionnaire; the
researcher suspected that these respondents probably did not read the questions and so
dropped them questionnaires from the sample. These adjustments bought the total
number of questionnaires down to 441 (351 employees and 90 leaders). The lower the
response rate, the higher the likelihood of response bias or non-response error (Hager et
al., 2003). Babbie (1990) stated that a response rate of 50% is adequate for analysis and
reporting, response rate of 60% is good, and a response rate of 70% or more is very
good. Based on these percentages, the 73.5% response rate of this research can be
regarded as very good (Hager et al., 2003).
The high response rate of 73.5% can be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, the
human resources manager in SABIC sent an email messages to all the SABIC
employees to encourage the participants to cooperate with the researcher. Reminder
messages were sent to all the participants regularly from HRM. The employees were
assured that the questionnaires would be received directly by the researcher and that
nobody in the organisation would see their ratings and comments. According to Salkind
(2003) ensuring participant confidentiality was critical to obtaining candid responses.
Table (3.14) presents response and return rate.
125
Table (4-14): Response and Return Rate
Questionnaires
Distributed
Returned Questionnaires
Return
rate
Unusable
Usable
questionnaires
returned
respondents‟
leaders‟
questionnaires
not returned
respondents
had circled the
same scale
number for
every question
in the
questionnaire
employee 500 5 11 351 70.2%
leader 100 - 90 90%
Totals 600 16 441 73.5%
4.23. Employees’ Background Information
Participants were asked to report how long they had been with the company, how long
have they had worked under their current direct line manager, their age group, their
highest level of education, their nationality (see table -15).
Table (4-15): Employees‟ Demographic Data
How long have you been with your current
company? N. Percentage
From 6 month to less than 1 year 15 4.4%
From 1year to less than 3 years 50 14%
From 3 years to less than 5 years 72 20.5%
From 5 years to less than10 years 178 50.7%
From 10 years to 20 years 21 6%
longer than 20 years 15 4.4%
How long have you worked under your
current line manager?
From 6 month to less than 1 year 53 15%
126
From 1year to less than 3 years 70 20%
From 3 years to less than 5 years 88 25%
From 5 years to less than10 years 128 36.5%
From 10 years to 20 years 12 3.5%
longer than 20 years 0 0%
What is your age group?
Under 18 0 0%
18-25 35 10%
26-35 116 33%
36-45 149 42.5%
46-55 39 11%
Over 55 12 3.5%
What is the highest level of education you have
completed?
Did not finish high school 0 0%
High school or equivalent 0 0%
Some college work completed 19 5.4%%
Bachelor‟s degree 210 59.8%
Master‟s degree 66 18.8%.
Doctoral degree 56 16%
Other (Please describe) 0 0%
Participants indicated their service in the current company (SABIC) and responses
ranged from 6 months to less than 1 year at 4.4%, between 1 to less than 3 years at 14%,
between 3 to less than 5 years at 20.5%, and between 5 to less than 10 years at 50.7%,
between 10 years to less than 20 years at 6% Whereas, 4.4% of respondents reported
having more than 20 years of service. 35% of the respondents had 6 months or less than
3 years of work under their current direct manager, whereas 25% had between 3 and
less than 5 years, 36.5% between 5 and 10 years and 3.5% between 10 and 20 years. No
respondent had had the same manager for longer than 20 years. The majority of
respondents‟ were aged from 36-45 years (42.5%) followed by the age group between
26 and 35 years (33%). A majority of respondents have bachelor‟s degree at 59.8%
followed by master‟s degree holders at 18.8%. The participants had a mix of
nationalities as shown in table (4.16)
127
Table (4.16): Employees‟ Nationality
Nationalities N.
Australian 2
Brazilian 1
British 18
Canadian 2
Chilean 1
Chinese 8
Hollander 2
Egyptian 12
Filipino 20
Indian 80
Indonesian 11
Jordanian 6
Lebanese 5
Malaysian 10
Pakistani 20
Polish 3
Saudi Arabian 117
South African 10
Sudanese 7
Syrian 6
American 7
Venezuelan 3
4.24. Managers’ Background Information
Participants were asked to report how long they had been with the company, their age
group, their highest level of education, their nationality and the (see table -17).
Table (4-17): Employees‟ Demographic Data
How long have you been with your current
company? N. Percentage
From 6 month to less than 1 year 4 1%,
From 1year to less than 3 years 37 10.5%
From 3 years to less than 5 years 42 12%
From 5 years to less than10 years 123 35%
From 10 years to 20 years 107 30.5%.
longer than 20 years 38 11%,
What is your age group?
128
Under 18 0 0%
18-25 7 2%
26-35 60 17%
36-45 130 37 %.
46-55 140 40%
Over 55
14 4%
What is the highest level of education you
have completed?
Did not finish high school 0 0%
High school or equivalent 0 0%
Some college work completed 9 2.5
Bachelor‟s degree 170 48.4%
Master‟s degree 100 28.6%,
Doctoral degree 72 20.5%.
Other (Please describe) 0 0%
Participants indicated their service in their current company and responses ranged from
6 months to less than 1 year at 1%, to longer than 20 years at 11%, between 3 to less
than 5 was 12%, the majority of respondents had from 5 to 20 years in the company at
65%. The manager‟s sample included participants ranging in age from 46 to 55 at 40%
followed by age group between 36 and 45 years at 37.8%. The majority of respondents
had bachelors‟ degrees at 48.4% followed by master‟s degree holders at 28.6%, whereas
the of the PhD holders percentage were at 20.5%.
4.25. Construct Validity Using Factor Analyses Technique:
A conformity factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood was performed on the
study instrument, namely, follower perception of charismatic leadership, ethical
leadership, leader prototypicality, team identity, affective organisational commitment,
and group relationship conflict and group cohesion. The following section will discuss
this in more detail.
129
Factor analyses for employee’s questionnaire
The factor analysis utilised SPSS 18.0 software. The first factor analysis included all 25
items associated with the six hypothesised dimensions of the employees‟ perception of
charismatic leadership. The first stage was to rotate a six-factor solution. The factor
analysis yielded six-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,
accounting for 37.899 of the variance. The result of this factor analysis showed positive
factor loadings for charismatic leadership six sub-scales ranging from .444 to .875, the
eleven items is the weakest loading. The variable‟s reliability coefficient did not change
significantly when the item was removed; therefore all items remained present in the
final data analysis. However, based on its theoretical appeal, this item was retained. The
factors and items are presented in Table (4-17).
Table (4-18): Rotated Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 25-item Charismatic
Leadership Scale
Item
Factor Loading (α = .896)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
1. My line manager influences others
by developing mutual liking and
respect. (SMN)
.694 -.174 .176 -.030 .002 .313
2. My line manager shows sensitivity
for the needs and feelings of the
other members in the organisation.
(SMN)
.619 -.068 .219 .199 -.241 -.027
3. My line manager often expresses
personal concern for the needs and
feelings of other members of the
organisation. (SMN)
.675 .052 -.046 .214 -.043 -.042
4. My line manager readily recognises
barriers/forces within the
organisation that may block or
hinder achievement of his/her
goals. (SE)
-.187 .674 .279 .253 .027 .149
5. My line manager readily recognises
new environmental opportunities
(favourable physical and social
conditions) that may facilitate
achievement or organisational
objectives. (SE)
-.094 .836 -.062 -.085 .113 -.099
6. My line manager readily recognises
constraints in the physical
environment (technological
limitations, lack of resources, etc.)
that may stand in the way of
-.242 .673 .195 .208 .072 -.110
130
Item
Factor Loading (α = .896)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
achieving organisational objectives.
(SE)
7. My line manager readily recognises
constraints in the organisation‟s
social and cultural environment
(cultural norms, lack of grassroots
support, etc.) that may stand in the
way of achieving organisational
objectives. (SE)
-.101 .713 .151 .124 .017 -.197
8. My line manager recognises the
abilities and skills of other
members in the organisation. (SE)
-.218 .740 -.008 -.048 -.007 -.165
9. My line manager is entrepreneurial;
seizes new opportunities in order to
achieve goals. (SE)
.017 .692 .200 -.194 -.015 .036
10. My line manager recognises the
limitations of other members in the
organisation. (SE)
-.189 .707 .017 .162 .040 -.244
11. My line manager engages in
unconventional behaviour in order
to achieve organisational goals.
(UB)
.288 .435 .444 -.173 .221 .040
12. My line manager often exhibits
very unique behaviour that
surprises other members of the
organisation. (UB)
.373 -.092 .481 .009 .363 .082
13. My line manager uses non-
traditional means to achieve
organisational goals. (UB)
.370 .341 .468 -.143 .041 -.047
14. In pursuing organisational
objectives, my line manager
engages in activities involving
considerable self-sacrifice. (PR)
-.085 .163 .125 .694 -.082 -.026
15. My line manager takes high
personal risks for the sake of the
organisation. (PR)
.170 .451 -.033 .583 -.123 -.109
16. My line manager often incurs high
personal costs for the good of the
organisation. (PR)
.447 .095 -.150 .568 -.133 .050
17. In pursuing organisational
objectives, my line manager
engages in activities involving
considerable personal risk. (PR)
.536 .159 -.064 .591 -.081 -.013
18. My line manager advocates
following non-risky, well-
established courses of action to
achieve organisational goals. (SQ)
.021 -.253 .049 .130 .587 .197
19. My line manager tries to maintain
the status quo or normal way of .257 -.084 -.214 .392 .401 .180
131
Item
Factor Loading (α = .896)
SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA
doing things. (SQ)
20. My line manager provides inspiring
strategic and organisational goals.
(SVA)
.059 -.077 .004 -.194 -.122 .821
21. My line manager is inspirational;
able to motivate by articulating
effectively the importance of what
organisational members are doing.
(SVA)
.056 -.050 -.074 -.100 -.140 .821
22. My line manager consistently
generates new ideas for the future
of the organisation. (SVA
.042 -.019 -.145 -.158 -.151 .818
23. My line manager is an exciting
public speaker. (SVA) .142 .112 -.200 .146 -.081 .609
24. My line manager appears to be a
skillful performer when presenting
to a group. (SVA)
.070 -.091 -.235 .015 .078 .728
25. My line manager has vision; often
brings up ideas about possibilities
for the future of the organisation.
(SVA)
-.044 -.043 -.150 -.133 .169 .875
The second factor analysis included all 6 items for leader prototypicality. The factor
analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,
accounting for 72.164 of the variance. All items have high loading in component one;
this factor is labelled “leader prototypicality”. The results of this factor analysis showed
positive factor loadings for the leader prototypicality range from 0.772 to 0.861. The
factors and items are presented in Table (4-18).
Table (4-19): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Leader
Prototypicality Scale.
Items Factor loading (α = .923)
1. This team leader is a good example of the
kind of people that are members of my
team.
.849
2. This team leader has very much in
common with the members of my team.
.848
132
3. This team leader represents what is
characteristic about the team.
.861
4. This team leader is very similar to the
members of my team.
.748
5. This team leader resembles the members
of my team.
.772
6. This team leader is an embodiment of our
group norms.
.811
The third factor analysis integrated all 7 items associated with Team Identity. The factor
analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,
accounting for 46.586 of the variance. All items have a high loading in component one;
this factor is labelled “Team Identity”. The results of this factor analysis showed
positive factor loadings for team identity, ranging from 0.338 to 0.943. The factors and
items are presented in Table (4-20).
Table (4-20): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team
Identification Scale
Items Factor loading (α=.849)
1. I identify myself as a member of my
team.
.633
2. Being a member of my team reflects
my personality well.
.559
3. I like to work for my team. .338
4. I think reluctantly of my team. (recod) .943
5. Sometimes I rather don‟t say that I am
member of the team. (recod)
.930
6. My team is positively judged by
others.
.630
7. I work for my team above what is
absolutely necessary.
.533
133
The fourth factor analysis integrated all items of affective organisational commitment.
The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 60.672 of the variance. All items have high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “Afflictive Organisational commitment”. The
result of this factor analysis showed positive factor loadings for affective organisational
commitment, ranging from 0.604 to 902. The factors and items are presented in Table
(4-21).
Table (4-21): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Affective
Organisational Commitment.
Items Factor loading (α=.901)
1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with
this organisation.
.691
2. I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my
own.
.604
3. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my
organisation. (recod)
.850
4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this
organisation. (recod)
.902
5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my
organisation. (recod)
.842
6. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning
for me.
.744
The fifth factor analysis integrated all 9 items of Ethical leadership. The factor analyses
produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,
accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items have a high loading in component one;
this factor is labelled “Ethical leadership”. Te results from this factor analysis showed
positive factor loadings for Ethical leadership, ranging from 0.400 to 0.772. The factors
and items are presented in Table (4-22).
134
Table (4-22): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Ethical
Leadership Scale
Items Factor loading (α= .791)
1. My manager will find it necessary to lie in
order to get what he/she wants. (recod)
.772
2. To my manager, loyalty to the company is
more important than loyalty to the truth or
moral principles. (recod)
.527
3. My manager believes that, in business,
promises are made to be broken. (recod)
.728
4. When making decisions at work, my manager
will attend to all facts even those that he/she
do not want to hear.
.400
5. If my manager knows that something is the
right thing to do, he/she will act accordingly.
.614
6. My manager‟s actions, in business, are
consistent to his/her convictions.
.453
7. When making business decisions about
rewards, my manager lets his/her feelings
override the facts. (recod)
.630
8. My manager will consider office politics
rather than strictly basing decision on
employee merit. (recod)
.560
9. My manager will give employees rewards
based strictly on employees‟ level of
competence and achievement.
.392
4.26. Reliability for Employee’s Questionnaire
The reliability of the 25-item charismatic leadership scale was examined using
Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability of the full 25-item scale was 0.869. The Cronbach‟s
alpha gave 0.923 for the leader prototypicality scale, 0.846 for the team identity scale,
0.901 for the affective organisational commitment scale and 0.79 for ethical leadership
scale. The alpha reliability of the five scales indicates a good reliability, as an overall
alpha of 0.80 or above is considered satisfactory. Table (4-23) shows the reliability
135
statistics for the employee‟s questionnaire.
Table (4-23): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire
Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Charismatic leadership .896 25
Leader prototypicality .923 6
Team Identity .849 7
Affective organisational commitment .901 6
Ethical leadership .791 9
4.27. Inter-correlations between the Five Employee’s Scale Dimensions
Table (4-24) presents the correlations between the five scales. The results showed
significant positive correlations between all the employees‟ questionnaire dimensions.
Correlations among the scales of the constructs ranged from 0.276 to 0.615, with the
weakest relationship being between team identity and ethical leadership and the
strongest relationship between charismatic leadership and leader prototypicality.
However, the two-tailed correlation significance or probability level was 0.001 or less,
meaning the correlations are statistically significant. The correlations between the
employee‟s questionnaire dimensions are all significant at the 0.01 level. Thus, from
these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs have high internal consistency.
Table (4-24): Summary of Inter-correlations between the Five Employees‟ Scale
Dimensions
Dimensions TL LP TI AOC EL
Charismatic leadership (CL) 1
Leader prototypicality (LP) .615** 1
Team Identity (TI) .356** .336
** 1
Affective organisational
commitment (AOC)
.462** .473
** .485** 1
Ethical leadership (EL) .511** .408
** .276** .464
** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
136
Factor analyses for leader’s questionnaire
The first factor analysis integrated all 5 items associated with Group relation conflict.
The factor analysis produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items had high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “group relation conflict”. The results of this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings for Group relation conflict ranging from 0.708
to 0.809. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-25).
Table (4-25): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 5-item Group Relation
Conflict Scale
Items Factor loading (α=.952)
1. How much emotional conflict is
there among the members of your
group? (recod)
.806
2. How much anger is there among
the members of the group? (recod)
.708
3. How much personal friction is
there in the group during decision
making? (recod)
.809
4. How much personality clashes are
evident between the members of
the group? (recod)
.638
5. How much tension is there in the
group during decision making?
(recod)
.778
The second factor analysis integrated all 6 items associated with Group cohesion. The
factor analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues
above 1.0, accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items have high loading in
component one; this factor is labelled “Group cohesion”. The results of this factor
analysis showed positive factor loadings for Ethical leadership ranging from 0.674 to
0.893. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-26).
137
Table (4-26): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Group Cohesion
Scale
Items Factor loading (α=.863)
1. There is a great deal of trust among
members of my work group.
.893
2. Members of my group work together
as a team.
.950
3. The members of my work group are
cooperative with each other.
.980
4. My work group members know that
they can depend on each other.
.924
5. The members of my work group
stand up for each other.
.824
6. The members of my work group
regard each other as friends.
.674
4.28. Reliability for Leader’s Questionnaire
The reliability of the 5-item group relation conflict scale was examined using
Cronbach‟s alpha and the reliability of the full 5-item scale was 0.863. The Cronbach‟s
alpha was 0.952 for the group cohesion scale. The alpha reliability of the two scales
indicates that the scales gave good reliability. As previously stated, alpha of 0.80 or
above is considered satisfactory. Table (4-27) presents the reliability statistics for the
employee‟s questionnaire.
Table (4-27): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire
Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Group relation conflict .863 5
Group cohesion .952 6
138
4.29. Inter-Correlations between the Two Leader’s Scale Dimensions
Table (4-28) presents correlations between the two manager‟s dimensions. Results
showed significant negative correlations between all the manager questionnaire
dimensions (-0.567). The bivariate correlations between manager questionnaire
dimensions are all significant at the 0.01 level. From these findings, it can be concluded
that the constructs are considered to have high internal consistency.
Table (4-28): Correlations between the two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions
Dimension GRC GC
Group relation conflict (GRC) 1
Group cohesion (RC) - .567** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.30. Summary
This chapter focused on the methods followed to test the study framework. The chapter
justified the suitability of the positivist philosophy to assist in producing data relating to
theoretical frameworks and to achieve the research objectives, by clarifying
relationships between the study variables. The research was undertaken as a survey to
provide an understanding of the issue and resulted in the decision to employ a
quantitative approach, to determine the relationships between variables. A survey tool is
an appropriate means by which to gather data from a large group of individuals in a
short time frame. The main study involved conducting a paper based questionnaire that
was distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders throughout (SABIC) in different
regions in KSA; 441 questionnaires were returned giving a high 73.5% response rate.
The researcher employed a pilot study before the main study was conducted. To give
advancewarning about which research procedures may not be followed, and to
determine whether the methods or instruments proposed were inappropriate or too
complex. The data collected were analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). Thus,
descriptive statistics were used to ensure that the data was normally distributed and to
provide averages and standard deviations for each of the variables in the study.
139
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to ensure the construct validity of
the instrument as well as to identify groups or clusters of variables (Field, 2009). Finally
the study‟s instruments, validity and reliability were tested. Evidence was found that the
study instruments reliability, based on the pilot and main study of employees and
leaders questionnaires ranged from .791-.952; well above the generally accepted lower
limit of 0.6 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
140
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS
5.1. Introduction
This chapter is based on the questionnaire results collected from Saudi Basic Industries
Corporation (SABIC) employees, principally because the company employs people
drawn from a range of different countries and cultures. As mentioned in chapter four, a
survey questionnaire was distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders in SABIC;
441 questionnaires were returned with 73.5% response rate.
The data collected was then analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). The analysis
was conducted in a series of steps. The first step in the data analysis was to calculate the
realities of the various scales measuring the differing variables at the individual level.
This study determined the internal consistency of similar items, indicating the average
of the inter-correlations between the items (Crocker and Algina, 1986). Particularly, this
study employed a widely used index of internal consistency, namely the Cronbach‟s
alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). Descriptive statistics were used to ensure that the
data was normally distributed and to provide averages and standard deviations for each
of the variables in the study. The confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to
ensure construct validity of the instrument, as well as to identify groups or clusters of
variables (Field, 2009). The results from these analytical procedures were introduced in
chapter four. In the second step in the analysis of the data, a Pearson product moment
correlation was computed between independent variables, moderator variables and
dependant variables at the individual and group level. After this was completed, the
main analyses were conducted, probing the research questions. Critical to this study was
the challenge of the level of analysis. The study was interested in group level variables
since it was examining the employees‟ perspective. Because the data has been collected
from individuals, it is critical to aggregate the data into teams. Using the SPSS
procedure AGGREGATE, thus, individual responses have been collapsed into team
responses. While the initial sample size was 351 employees (level 1) and 90 leaders
(level 2), in the end, the sample size used for the main analysis comprised of 90 groups
(figure 5-1 gives an example of this nesting).
141
Multilevel Modelling (MLM) techniques were used to test the hypotheses. Three
hundred and fifty one employee questionnaires were collected, these employees were
spread across 90 leaders, thus the employees could be nested under teams based on their
leaders, with each employee lead by a single leader, with each leader responsible for
between 2 and 8 employees in the study. Bar chart number (5.1) shows the number of
employees surveyed for each leader. Such nesting is a standard feature of multilevel
data. Each employee nested under the same leader is likely to be influenced similarly by
the characteristics of that leader. This feature of multilevel data vastly widens the scope
and nature of the questions that can be answered. At the same time, such nesting can
invalidate the use of “single-level” ordinary least square regression analysis of variance,
and other forms of analysis that fail to account for the non-independence between
observations that such nesting produces (Bliese and Hanger, 2004; Field, 2009). The
primary independent variable of interest is employee perspectives, whereas the social
identity components (team identity and leader prototypicality) are used as moderators.
The first outcome variable identifies the extent to which the employee is committed to
the organisation. This data is collected at the employee-level “level-1”. Finally, the
remainder of the outcome variables identify group relation conflict and group cohesion
were measured at the leader level, “level-2.
Figure (5-1): An Example of Employees Nested Under their Leaders
Produced for the purpose of this research
142
Figure (5.2): The Number of Employees for Each Leader
Inter-correlations between the study’s scale dimensions - group level
Table (5-1) presents correlations between the aggregated study variables. Results
showed significant positive correlations between the six study‟s variables at the group
level. The results also displayed the expected significant negative correlation between
group relation conflict and all the study variables at the group level. Correlations among
the scales of the constructs ranged from .79 to .14, with the weakest relationship being
between team identity and group cohesion and the strongest relationship being between
charismatic leadership and leader prototypicality. However; the two-tailed correlation
significance, or probabilities level was found to be .001 or less (Field, 2009), so the
correlations are statistically significant. The correlations between study variables are all
significant at .01 levels. Whereas, the correlation between team identification and
cohesion was significant at .05 level.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169
171
173
175
177
179
181
183
185
187
189
143
Table (5-1): Summary of Inter-Correlations between the Study‟s Scale Dimensions - Group Level.
Variables Mean S.D TI LP CL EL AOC GRC GC
Team identify (TI)
4.95
.96
1
Leader Prototypicality ( LP) 3.34 .94 .58** 1
Charismatic Leadership (CL) 3.96 .84 .56** .79
** 1
Ethical Leadership (EL) 4.8 1.09 .56** .6
** .6** 1
Affective Organisational Commitment
(AOC)
4.9 1.52 .6** .66
** .6** .7
** 1
Group Relation Conflict (GRC) 2.4 .75 -.35** -.57
** -.6** -.36 -.36
** 1
Group Cohesion (GC) 5.4 1.098 . 14*
.397** .39
** .34** .32
** -.54** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
144
5.2. Testing the Hypothesised Relationships between Leadership Behaviours and
Leader’s Effectiveness
Hypothesis testing has been divided into two sections, first are those hypotheses that
examine the relationships between the two study concepts, charismatic leadership and
ethical leadership to affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion.
The second group of hypotheses address the role of leader prototypicality and team
identification as moderators of these relationships. As has been mentioned before, this
study was interested in group level. Thus, to test these relationships, multilevel analyses
and maximum likelihood (ML) estimations were employed. As recommended by Cress
(2008) the first step in this analysis run by the researcher was the intercept-only model
“null model” for affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion. The
intercept-only model does not explain any variance, but simply reveals the proportion of
variance caused by the groups. The intercept-only model is given in the following
equation:
Y ij = y00 + uoj +rij
This model reveals whether employees affective commitment to the organisation, group
relation conflict and group cohesion are dependent on their perspective of their leader.
The model is a one-factorial ANOVA with a random factor “u” describing the different
groups. First, null models were run to assess whether the study data met the condition
that there be a systematic link between-group variance in these measures. The results for
affective organisational commitment ( = 1.134,df = , X2 =, p < .000), group relation
conflict ( = .48, df = , X2 =, p < .000) and group cohesion ( = 1.08, df = , X
2 =, p
< .000) are so described. Estimating the null mode also produces the information
necessary for commuting inter-correlation coefficients (ICC) in the proportion of
between-group variance in affective organisational commitment, group relation conflict
and group cohesion. In includes no explanatory variables at the individual or the group
level. This model allows for the calculation of the ICC which is presented in the
following equation:
145
Only if the ICC is significant, i.e. the variance components are different to zero, must
multilevel mode is used. So, if the ICC is not significant it is recommended to apply a
standard regression without any anxiety, because there is no group effect in the data
(Cress, 2008). If the ICC is adequately proximal to zero some argue MLM is
unnecessary, as the implication of this is that, statistically, level-1 units (employees) are
independent. However, the required proximity is dependent on variables also as values
of ICC as small as 0.05 can be cited to nullify hypotheses and confidence intervals
where MLM is not used (Kreft and de Leuw, 1998). Accordingly, before proceeding to
test the relationships in the hypothesised model with (MLM) the Inter-correlation
coefficient (ICC) was applied to test the necessity of using (MLM). Thus, in testing
variance components, the researcher is testing whether they differ from zero, however,
variances can never be negative, and thus, the lowest permissible value for a variance is
zero, which affects the sampling dissemination of the variance component (Hayes,
2006).
Based on table (5-2), estimating the null model produces information necessary for
computing inter-correlation coefficients (ICC) that indicate the proportion of between-
group (level-2) variance in affective commitment = .104879 = 1.134157, so ICC
= 1.134157/(1.134157 + .104879) = .91535436. The result of this analysis indicates that
91% of the variance in affective organisational commitment lies between-leaders (level-
2). Whereas, ICC for group relation conflict is, = .029289 so ICC =
.476922/(.476922+ .029289) = .94214073, this means that 94% of the variance in group
relation conflict lies between-leaders (level-2). Finally, the ICC for group cohesion
is , so ICC =1.079588 (1.079588+ .094276) =.91968746, this in turn
means that 91% of the variance in group cohesion lies between-leaders (level-2). Both
the results for affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion
variance components are different to zero, which suggests that this condition has been
satisfied.
146
Table (5-2): Null Mode
Parameter Dependent Variable Estimate S.E Sig. 95%CI
Affective Organisational
Commitment
Residual .105 .009 .000 .088, .125
Intercept (subject =
manger no.) Variance
( )
1.134 .175 .000 .838, 1.535
Group Relation Conflict
Residual .029 .003 .000 .025, .035
Intercept (subject =
manger no.) Variance
( )
.477 .073 .000 .354, .643
Group Cohesion
Residual .094 .008 .000 .079, .111955
Intercept (subject =
manger no.) Variance
( )
1.08 .166 .000 .799, 1.459
The second step in the data analysis was to run a multilevel model to test the
relationship between the protectors‟ variables and the dependants‟ variables.
5.2.1. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Charismatic Leadership
and Leader Effectiveness
Hypothesis 1 was concerned with the relationship between charismatic leadership and
leader effectiveness (affective organisation commitment, group relation conflict and
group cohesion).
H1a there is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership behaviour and the
level of employees’ affective commitment to the organisation.
147
The finding for the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and
employees affective commitment is given in table (5-3). Multilevel modelling analyses
showed that charismatic leadership behaviours significantly predicted employee‟s
affective commitment ( β = .85, t = 9.08, p < .000), leading to an acceptance of the H1a
hypothesis, indicating, that as the study assumed, those employees who perceive their
leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours felt more committed to the
organisation than those who did not.
According to H1b, it is assumed that there is a negative relationship between
charismatic leadership behaviour and the level of conflict. It was found that charismatic
leadership was negatively related to group relation conflict (β = -.57, t = -9.56, p <
.000), thus, support for this hypothesis was found. Therefore, team/employees who
perceive their leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours have less relation
conflict than those who do not.
Hypothesis H1c proposed a positive relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour and the level of cohesion. The result for this relationship is revealed by the
positive relationship between charismatic leadership and group cohesion, (β = .51, t =
5.12, p < .000). Thus, it can be argued that team/employees that perceive their leader
exhibits charismatic leadership behaviours have more cohesion than those who do not.
Table (5-3): Multilevel Results of Charismatic leadership as a Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Dependent Beta T SE Sig. 95%CI
Intercept 1.49 4.07 .37 .000 .77, 2.22
Affective Organisational
commitment
.85 9.08 .09 .000 .67, 1.04
Intercept 1.77 7.57 .23 .000 1.3, 2.24
Group Relation Conflict -.57 -9.56 .05 .000 .45, .69
Intercept 3.35 8.53 .39 .000 2.58, 4.13
Group Cohesion .51 5.12 .1 .000 .32, .7
148
To conclude it was found that charismatic leadership was positively related to two
indicators of leader effectiveness, affective organisational commitment and group
cohesion. Charismatic leadership was most significantly related to affective
organisational commitment (B =.85, p <.000), followed by group cohesion (β =.51, p
<.000) and finally a negative relationship with group relation conflict (β = -.57, p
<.000). Therefore, support was found for Hypothesis 1 which predicted a significant
relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness.
5.2.2. The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Dimensions and Leader
Effectiveness
In the previous section the researcher examined the relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour (C-K scale) and the three work–related outcomes (affective
organisational commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion). Whereas, the
main aim of this section is to identify which dimension of charismatic leadership (C-K
scale) has the most significant impact on the relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviours and the three dependent variables being studied.
To examine the relationship between charismatic leadership dimensions (C-K) and
affective organisational commitment multilevel modelling was applied. The results
showed a significant positive relationship between the five dimensions of the scale and
affective organisational commitment; whereas, there is no main effect seen between
unconventional behaviours (UB). This relationship ranged from (.6 to .75), with the
weakest relationship describing sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and strategic vision
and articulation (SVA), and the strongest relationship being the association with status
quo (SQ) {for more details see table (5-4) and figure (5-3)}. The relationship between
most of the charismatic leadership scale‟s dimensions are significant at .000, indicating
that charismatic leadership‟s five dimensions are significant predictors of employee‟s
affective organisational commitment.
149
Figure (5-3): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and affective Organisational Commitment.
Table (5-4): Multilevel Results of Charismatic Leadership Subscales as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Affective organisational commitment
Intercept 3.2 9.8 .24 .000
SMN .6 11.3 .05 .000
Intercept 4.12 7.3 .57 .000
UB .2 1.2 .17 .231
Intercept 2.25 5.4 .42 .000
SVA .6 5.8 .11 .000
intercept 2.69 5.6 .48 .000
150
PR .61 4.2 .15 .000
intercept 2.04 4.2 .49 .000
SE .67 5.5 .12 .000
intercept 1.7 2.9 .6 .000
SQ .75 5.1 .15 .000
Table (5-5) illustrates a significant negative relationship between charismatic leadership
dimensions and group relation conflict. This effect ranged from -.3 to -.6, with the
weakest relationship being that to unconventional behaviours (UB) and the strongest
relationship with Sensitivity to Environmental context (SE) {for more details see table
(5-5) and figure (5-4)}. The relationships between the charismatic leadership scale‟s
dimensions are all significant at .000, .001 and .006, indicating that charismatic
leadership is a significant predictor of group relation conflict.
Figure (5-4): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Group Relation Conflict
151
Table (5-5): Multilevel Results of Charismatic Leadership Subscales as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group relation conflict
intercept -2.27 -7.62 .3 .000
SMN -.42 -5.96 .07 .000
intercept -2.97 -7.88 .38 .000
UB -.3 -2.8 2.8 .006
intercept -1.79 -5.6 .32 .000
SVA -.55 -7.1 .77 .000
intercept -2.77 -7.67 .36 .000
PR -.35 -3.49 .1 .001
intercept -1.59 -4.65 .34 .000
SE -.58 -7.18 .08 .000
intercept -1.76 -4.047 .44 .000
SQ -.54 -5.2 .1 .000
The results also displayed, as expected, a significant positive relationship between
charismatic leadership dimensions and group cohesion. They showed that there is a
main effect for charismatic leadership dimensions on group cohesion. This main effect
scored from .33 to .62, with the weakest relationship being to unconventional
behaviours (UB) and the strongest relationship being with Sensitivity to Environmental
context (SE) {for more details see table (5-6) and figure (5-5)}. The relationships
between charismatic leadership scale‟s dimensions are all significant at the .000, .001,
.01 and .05, indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor of group
relation conflict.
152
Figure (5-5): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscale
and Group Cohesion
Table (5-6): Multilevel Results for Charismatic Leadership Subscale as a Predictor of
Leader Effectiveness
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group cohesion
intercept 3.7 7.4 .5 .000
SMN .39 3.4 .12 .001
intercept 4.07 7.06 .6 .000
UB .37 2.3 .16 .024
intercept 3.3 5.9 .56 .000
SVA .52 3.8 .14 .000
intercept 4.03 7.67 .36 .000
PR .38 3.4 .16 .01
153
intercept 2.8 4. 7 .59 .000
SE .62 4.5 .14 .000
intercept 2.9 4.14 .7 .000
SQ ,59 3.5 .16 .001
In summary, from the multilevel modelling analysis, the results revealed that there are
significant positive relationships between the five dimensions of charismatic leadership
and affective organisational commitment. Whilst, the results exhibited no significant
relationship between the second dimension of charismatic leadership, which is
unconventional behaviours (UB) and affective organisational commitment. However,
the relationships between charismatic leadership dimensions and group relation conflict
were negative, as assumed. The results also revealed a positive relationship between the
six dimensions of charismatic leadership and group cohesion. Therefore, there are no
significant differences between the results obtained from analysing the relationship
between the charismatic leadership scale as whole and those from testing each
dimension separately. With the exception of the relationship between unconventional
behaviours (UB) and affective organisational commitment.
5.2.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Ethical Leadership and
Leader Effectiveness
Hypothesis 2 was concerned with the relationship between ethical leadership and leader
effectiveness (Affective organisation commitment, group relation conflict and group
cohesion). To test this relationship, multilevel modelling analysis was employed for
each of the indicators of leader effectiveness/work-related outcomes. The finding for
each of the dependent variables can be found in table (5-4).
The findings for the relationship between ethical leadership behaviours and employees
affective commitment can be found in table (5-7). Multilevel modelling analyses show
that ethical leadership behaviours significantly predicted employee‟s affective
organisational commitment, (β = 1.1, t = 16.45, p < .000), leading to an acceptance of
the H1a hypothesis. This means in turn that team/employees who perceive their leaders
154
to exhibit ethical leadership behaviours felt more committed to the organisation than
those who do not.
According to H2b, which assumes that there is a negative relationship between ethical
leadership behaviour and the level of conflict, it was found that ethical leadership was
negatively related to group relation conflict (β = -.48, t =-.10.81, p < .000); thus, the
support for this hypothesis was found. Therefore, team/employees that perceive their
leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours have less relation conflict than those
who do not.
Hypothesis H2c proposed a positive relationship between ethical leadership behaviour
and the level of group cohesion. The result for this relationship revealed the positive
relationship between ethical leadership and group cohesion (β = .37, t = 4.48, p < .000).
Thus, it can be argued that team/employees that perceive their leader to exhibit ethical
leadership behaviours have more cohesion than those teams that do not.
Table (5-7): Multilevel Results of Ethical Leadership as a Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Dependent Beta T SE Sig. 95%CI
Intercept -.27 .86 .31 .394 -.88, 35
Affective Organisational
commitment
1.1 16.45 .07 .000 .95, 1.21
Intercept 3.17 4.9 ,65 .000
Group Relation Conflict -.48 -.10.81 .04 .000 .39, .56
Intercept 3.57 8.88 .40 .000 2. 8, 4.4
Group Cohesion .37 4.48 .08 .000 .21, .55
In conclusion, it was found that Ethical leadership was positively related to two
indicators of leader effectiveness, affective organisational commitment and group
cohesion. Ethical leadership was most significantly related to affective organisational
commitment (β = 1.1, p<.000), followed by group cohesion (β =.37, p <.000) and finally
related negatively to group relationship conflict (β = -.48, p <.000). Therefore, support
155
was found for Hypothesis 2, which predicted a significant relationship between ethical
leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness.
The following section of multi-level analysis was performed for each factor to detect the
main effect of the independent variables and moderators on dependent variables (model
1). Multi-level analysis was performed also to determine the interactions that exist
between independent variables and moderators‟ variables (model 2).
5.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesising the Moderator role for Leader Prototypicality
and Team Identity on the Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and
Leader’s Effectiveness.
The third step was to run multilevel analyses to examine the moderating role of leader
prototypicality and team identification on the relationships between predictors‟
variables and dependants‟ variables. Multilevel modelling was conducted in order to
determine whether leadership prototypicality and team identification moderate the
relationship between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness. More specifically,
this test allowed us to determine whether there is an interactive effect, meaning
describing the slopes for leader prototypicality and team identification. If there is a
significant interactive effect, this means that these variables are moderators of the
relationship between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness.
5.3.1. The Moderator Role for Leader Prototypicality and Team Identity on the
Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Behaviours and Leader’s
Effectiveness.
Hypothesis 3 addressed the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader
effectiveness when leader prototypicality and team identification were also considered.
It was hypothesised that the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader
effectiveness would be moderated by these variables.
Using the methods recommended by Field (2009), tests for moderation were conducted.
Specifically, the approach consists of three predictor relationships that contribute to the
156
outcome variable of leader effectiveness including: charismatic leadership as a
predictor. Each of the proposed moderators acts as a predictor and the interaction or
product of the predictor and each of the moderators. As emphasised by (Field, 2009)
group mean centring is a typical form of centring variables in multilevel modelling prior
to analysis. To do so, all of the continuous predictor variables for this analysis were
centred by subtracting the team level mean of the variables from each individual score.
Field suggested group mean centring as a method for reducing multicollinearity in
multilevel models with interactions, especially when the independent variables
themselves are inter-correlated. Coulton and Chow (1992) highlighted that the use of
centred scores, results in two benefits: multicollinearity is reduced and the results for
the main effects become easier to interpret. In line with this discussion Raudenbush
(1989a, 1989b) recommended that in testing between-level moderation models, group
mean centring produces a more reliable estimate of the within- group slope (βlJ the
dependent variable) which, in turn, presents a fuller evaluation of the between-level
moderation. Therefore, it was necessary to use group mean centring in the present study
for operational reasons due to the various levels under analysis.
The pattern generated for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses, relating to the
moderating role of social identify on the relationship between leadership behaviours
(charismatic and ethical) and leader‟s effectiveness (reduce group relation conflict,
promote level of cohesion and affective commitment) will be described to explain the
moderation results (see Figure 5. 6).
157
Figure (5.6): Decision Tree for the Moderator
Affective organisational commitment.
In order to test H3a (the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective
organisational commitment will be moderated by leadership prototypes, such that the
relationship will be stronger with higher levels of leadership prototypes), multilevel
modelling was conducted. The multilevel results, describing variation between the
hypothesised moderation and dependent variable affective organisational commitment
158
can be found in (5-8). As shown in table (4-5), there was a main effect for charismatic
leadership (β = .33, t = 2. 7 p < .05), indicating it to be a significant predictor of
employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Additionally, a main effect was found
for leader prototypicality (β = .62, t = 6.87 p < .000), indicating that leader
prototypicality is a significant predictor of employees‟ affective organisational
commitment. Comparing the X2
change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi
square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), shows that this change is highly
significant at p< .01 because 43.85 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of
the hypothesis, significant interaction was found for charismatic leadership × leader
prototypicality (β = .11, t = 2.98 p < .003). X2 resulted in a change in model 2 that was
highly significant at p < .01, because 8.75 is bigger than the critical value of 3.83 for the
chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix A4). Thus, evidence was
found for leader prototypicality as moderators of the relationship between charismatic
leadership and affective organisational commitment.
Table (5-8): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
intercept 1.52 4.38 .35 .000 1.48 4.32 .34 .000
Charismatic leadership .33 2.7 .12 .05 .30 2.6 .12 009
Leader prototypicality .62 6.87 .09 .000 .65 .7.24 ..09 .000
Charismatic leadership
× Leader
prototypicality
.11 2.98 .04 .003
Mode fit (X2) 397.4 388.65
df 5 6
Change of mode fit
(X2)
43.85 8.75
159
Variation within groups .069 .068
Variation between
groups
.50 .51
H 3b describes the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective
organisational commitment as being moderated by team identification, such that the
relationship will be stronger with higher levels of team identification. As can be seen
from table 5-9, there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β = .40, t = 4.23, p <
.000), indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor of employees‟
affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect for team
identification (β = .98, t = 10.12, p < .000), indicating that team identification is a
significant predictor of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Moreover,
when comparing the X2
change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square
statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), this shows that the change is highly significant at
p < .01 because 88.27 is much larger than the two values. Supportive of the hypothesis,
significant interaction was found for charismatic leadership × team identification (β =
.6, t = 8.18, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is also significant at .01 because 8.23
is larger than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic, with a (1) degree of
freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team identification as a
moderator of the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective
organisational commitment.
160
Table (5-9): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
intercept -1.52 -3.4 .45 001 -1.52 -3.4 .45 .001
Charismatic leadership .40 4.23 .09 .000 .40 4.23 .10 000
Team Identification .98 10.12 .09 .000 .97 9.9 . 10 .000
Charismatic leadership
× Team Identification
.6 8.18 .03 .005
Mode fit (X2) 352.98 361.73
df 5 6
Change of mode fit
(X2)
88.27 8.23
Variation within
groups
.05 .06
Variation between
groups
.415 .414
Group relation Conflict.
When group relation conflict was examined as the dependent variable, a negative main
effect was found for charismatic leadership (β = -.79, t = -11.06 p < .000), (see table 5-
10). There was a main effect found for leader prototypicality (β = -.22, t = -5.77 p <
.000), indicating that leadership prototypicality is a significant predictor of group
relation conflict. Additionally, the table X2 statistic of 1 independent variable with
1degree of freedom at a significance level of .01 yields a value of (3.84 and 6.63). The
X2
change value of 31.43 for model 1 exceeds the table of X2
6.63, indicating that this
change is highly significant. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was
found for charismatic leadership × leader prototypicality (β = -.32, t = -6.2, p < .003).
X2 change in model 2 is significant at .01 because 9.96 is larger than the critical value of
161
6.63 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,
evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the relationship between
charismatic leadership and group relation conflict.
Table (5-10): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 1.66 7.08 .24 .000 1.68 7 .24 .000
Charismatic leadership -.79 11.06 .07 .000 .30 10.9 .07 .000
Leader prototypicality -.22 -5.77 .04 .000 -.22 -5.9 .04 .000
Charismatic leadership ×
Leader prototypicality
-.32 -6.2 .01 .003
Mode fit (X2) 98.9 102.8
df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 31.43 3.9
Variation within groups .0084 .0082
Variation between
groups
.712 .758
Table (5-11) illustrates that there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β = -1.28, t
= -5.63, p < .000); thus, indicating that charismatic leadership is significant predictor of
employees affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect for team
identification (β = -.79, t = -29, 8 p < .000), indicating that team identification is a
significant predictor of group relationship conflict. Furthermore, when comparing the
X2
change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi-square statistic with df =1
(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it shows that this change is highly significant, because 206 is much
larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was
162
found for charismatic leadership × team identification (β = -.8, t = -3.9, p < .05). X2
change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 4.54 is larger than the critical value
of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,
evidence was found for team identification as a moderator of the relationship between
charismatic leadership and group relation conflict.
Table (5-11): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 2.89 3.3 .87 .001 2.92 3.34 .45 .001
Charismatic leadership -1.28 -5.63 .23 .000 -1.3 -5.7 .23 .000
Team Identification -.79 -29.9 .03 .000 -.80 -29.8 . 27 .000
Charismatic leadership
× Team Identification
-.8 -3.9 .004 .05
Mode fit (X2) 273.5 278.04
df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 206 4.54
Variation within groups .00106 .00105
Variation between
groups
20.74 20.8
Group Cohesion.
The multilevel results for group cohesion can be found in table (5-12). Again a main
effect was found for charismatic leadership (β = .58, t = 4.45 p < .000). There was a
main effect found for leader prototypicality (β =, 43, t = 3.77 p < .000), indicating that
leader prototypicality is a significant predictor of group cohesion. Additionally, when
comparing the X2
change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi square
163
statistic, df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) shows that this change is highly significant because
8.22 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant
interaction was found for charismatic leadership × leader prototypicality (β = .7, t = 9.7,
p < .005). X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 3.83 is the same value
as the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see
appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the
relationship between charismatic leadership and group cohesion.
Table (5-12): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 3.35 8.52 .39 .000 3.34 8.49 .39 .000
Charismatic leadership .58 4.45 .13 .000 .56 4.35 .13 .000
Leader prototypicality .43 3.77 .1 .000 .42 3.67 .15 .000
Charismatic leadership
× Leader prototypicality
. 7 9.7 1.7 .005
Mode fit (X2) 454.1 457.93
df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 8.22 3.83
Variation within groups .070 .068
Variation between
groups
.858 .874
As demonstrated by table (5-13) there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β =
2.57, t = 3.74, p < .001), indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor
of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect found
for team identification (β = 2, t = 50.6 p < .000), indicating that team identification is a
significant predictor of group cohesion. Moreover, when comparing the X2
change in
164
model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and
6.63), it was shown that this change is highly significant because 418,49 is much larger
than these two values. Supportive to the hypothesis, significant interaction was found
for charismatic leadership × team identification (β = .7, t = 3.31, p < .004). The X2
change in model 2 is significant at p < .05, because 5.73 is larger than the critical value
of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,
evidence was found for team identification as a moderator of the relationship between
charismatic leadership and affective organisational commitment.
Table (5-13): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 5.64 2.14 2.6 .040 5.69 3.34 2.65 .038
Charismatic leadership 2.57 3.74 .69 .001 2.57 3.7 .69 .001
Team Identification 2 50.6 .04 .000 1.996 49.6 . 04 .000
Charismatic leadership
× Team Identification
.7 3.31 .05 .004
Mode fit (X2) 36.23 41.96
Df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 418.49 5.73
Variation within groups .001 .0015
Variation between
groups
191.24 191.52
For all the tests of moderation, there were strong main effects found for charismatic
leadership, leader prototypicality and team identification across all three dependant
variables. Evidence was also found for leader prototypicality and team identification as
moderators of the relationship between charismatic leadership and all three dependent
165
variables.
5.3.2. The Moderator Role for Leader Prototypicality and Team Identity on the
Relationship between Ethical Leadership Behaviours and Leader’s
Effectiveness
Hypothesis 4 addressed the relationship between ethical leadership and leader
effectiveness when leader prototypicality and team identification were also considered.
It was hypothesised that the relationship between ethical leadership and leader
effectiveness would be moderated by these variables.
Affective organisational commitment.
The multi-level results between the hypothesised moderation – leader prototypicality
and the dependent variable affective organisational commitment can be found in table
(5-14). As shown in the table, there was a main effect for ethical leadership (β =.89, t =
13.6, p < .000). Additionally, a main effect was found for leadership prototypicality (β
=.47, t = 7.88, p < .000), indicating that leadership prototypicality is a significant
predictor of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Furthermore, when
comparing the X2
change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi square
statistic of df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was found that this change is highly significant
because 56.86 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis,
significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × leadership prototypicality (β =
.5, t = 4.2, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is significant at.05 because 4.5 is larger
than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see
appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leadership prototypicality as a moderator of
the relationship between ethical leadership and affective organisational commitment.
166
Table (5-14): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept -.94 -3 .30 .002 -.95 -3 .39 .002
Ethical leadership . 89 13.6 .05 .000 .89 13.6 .13 .000
Leader prototypicality .47 7.88 .06 .000 .47 7.89 .25 .000
Ethical leadership ×
Leader prototypicality
.5 4.2 1.7 .005
Mode fit (X2) 252.20 256.03
df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 56.86 3.83
Variation within groups .042 .042
Variation between
groups
.442 .443
Table (5-15) showed that there was also a main effect for team identification ((β =.87, t
= 12.21 p < .000); indicating that team identification is a significant predictor of
employees‟ affective organisational commitment. In addition, when comparing the X2
change in model 1 to the same critical values as those for the chi square statistic, df =1
(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) shows that this change is highly significant because 115.19 is much
larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis is the fact that significant
interactions were found for ethical leadership × team identification (β = .6, t = 3.1, p <
.000). X2 change in model 2 is significant at .05 because 3.9 is larger than the critical
value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C).
Thus, evidence was found for team identification as moderator of the relationship
between ethical leadership and affective organisational commitment.
Table (5-15): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective
167
Organisational Commitment
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept -3.67 -9.36 .39 .000 -3.67 -9.35 .4 .000
Ethical leadership .896 14.49 .06 .000 .894 14.36 .06 .000
Team Identification .87 12.21 .07 .000 .87 12.21 .07 .000
Ethical leadership ×
Team Identification
. 6 3.1 .02 .000
Mode fit (X2) 193.87 197.77
df 5 6
Change of mode fit
(X2)
115.19 3.9
Variation within
groups
.030 .030
Variation between
groups
.52 .52
Group Relation Conflict.
When group relation conflict was examined as the dependent variable, a main effect was
found for ethical leadership (β = -.27, t= -5.2p < .000), (see table 4-16). There was a
main effect found for leader prototypicality (β = -.41, t = - 4.24, p < .005), indicating it
to be a significant predictor of group relation conflict. Furthermore, when comparing the
X2
change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square statistic with df =1
(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it was shown that this change is highly significant because 272.06 is
much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction
was found for ethical leadership × leader prototypicality (β = -.3, t = -3.47, p < .003).
The X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 4.22 is larger than the critical
value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with a 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C).
Thus, evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the relationship
between ethical leadership and group relation conflict.
168
Table (5-16): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 2.43 -9.8 .24 .000 2.43 -9.8 .24 .000
Ethical leadership -.27 -5.2 .05 .000 -.276 -5.2 .05 .000
Leader prototypicality -.41 -4.24 .04 .005 -.42 -4.88 .04 .005
Ethical leadership ×
Leader prototypicality
-.3 -3.47 1.7 .003
Mode fit (X2) 66.09 70.31
Df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 272.06 4.22
Variation within groups .021 .020
Variation between
groups
.38 .398
There was also a main effect for team identification (β = -.31, t = -3.14p < .002) (see
table 5-17), indicating that team identification is a significant predictor of group relation
conflict. Moreover, when comparing the X2
change in model 1 to the same critical
values for the chi square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was shown that this
change is highly significant, because 9.37 is much larger than these two values.
Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership ×
team identification (β = -.5, t = -3.31, p < .001). The X2 change in model 2 is significant
at p < .05 because 5.34 is larger than the critical value of 3.84 for the chi square statistic
with a 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team
identification as a moderator of the relationship between ethical leadership and affective
organisational commitment.
169
Table (5-17): Tests Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group
Relation Conflict
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept -4.6 5.99 .39 .000 4.6 -9.35 .77 .000
Ethical leadership -.33 -3.6 .06 .000 -.187 14.36 .13 .158
Team Identification -.31 -3.14 .07 .002 -.31 12.21 .08 .002
Ethical leadership ×
Team Identification
-. 5 -3.31 .03 .001
Mode fit (X2) 347.5 352.837
df 5 6
Change of mode fit
(X2)
9.37 5.337
Variation within groups .0009 .001
Variation between
groups
10.95 10.92
Group Cohesion. The multi-level modelling results for group cohesion can be found in
table (5-18). Again a main effect was found for ethical leadership (β =.33, t = 3.6 p <
.000) and a main effect was found for leader prototypicality (β =.34, t = 3.66, p < .001),
indicating it to be is a significant predictor of group cohesion. Additionally, when
Comparing the X2
change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi-square
statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was shown that this change is highly
significant because 22.66 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the
hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × leader
prototypicality (β = .3, t = 1.7, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is significant at p <
.05 because 4.145 is larger than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with
1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leader
prototypicality as moderator of the relationship between ethical leadership and group
cohesion.
170
Table (5-18): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship for Group Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
intercept 3.4 8.15 .41 .000 3.4 8.2 .4 .000
Ethical leadership .33 3.6 .08 .000 .32 3.58 .09 .000
Leader prototypicality .34 3.66 .08 .001 . 35 3.67 .08 .001
Ethical leadership ×
Leader prototypicality
. 3 1. 7 .03 .005
Mode fit (X2) 469.5 473.65
df 5 6
Change of mode fit
(X2)
22.66 4.145
Variation within
groups
.079 .078
Variation between
groups
.742 .746
Table (5-19) illustrated that there was also a main effect for team identification ((β =
.46, t = 4.76 p < .04), making it a significant predictor of group cohesion. Furthermore,
when comparing the X2
change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi
square statistic where df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it was shown that this change is highly
significant because 169 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the
hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × team identification
(β = .51, t = 4.4, p < .000). X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 6.05 is
larger than the critical value of 3.83 the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom
(see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team identification as moderator of the
relationship between ethical leadership and group cohesion.
171
Table (5-19): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship for Group Cohesion
Model 1 Model 2
Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.
Intercept 2.49 1.31 1.9 .001 2.49 1.31 1.9 .001
Ethical leadership .47 1.46 .32 .000 .47 1.46 .32 .000
Team Identification .46 4.67 .24 .04 .458 4.67 .23 .04
Ethical leadership × Team
Identification
.5 1 4.4 .153 .000
Mode fit (X2) 641.5 647.55
Df 5 6
Change of mode fit (X2) 169.36 6.053
Variation within groups .0001 .0001
Variation between groups 71.71 71.71
For all the tests for moderation, there were strong main effects for ethical leadership,
leader prototypicality and team identification across all three dependant variables.
Evidence was found for leader prototypicality and team identification as moderators of
the relationship between ethical leadership and all three dependent variables.
The moderator effect of the six charismatic leadership subscales on work related leader
effectiveness.
Again in this section the researcher examined which dimension of the charismatic
leadership (C-K scale) has the most significant interaction with leader prototypicality in
view of the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and the three
dependent variables under study. As can be seen in table (5-20 and figure 5-7), the
results reveal that there are significant interactions for sensitivity to member needs
(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and
172
also for does not maintain status quo (SQ) and X leader prototypicality. This interaction
ranged from .06 to .09, significant at .05, 01 and .0001. Thus, it can be argued that the
relationship between sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic vision and
articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE), does not maintain status quo
(SQ) and affective organisational commitment are stronger when moderated by leader
prototypicality. In contrast, there were no significant inter actions found for
unconventional behaviour (UB) and personal risk (PR) and X leader prototypicality.
This means that the relationships between (UB) and (PR) and affective organisational
commitment remain unaltered when moderated by leader prototypicality.
Figure (5-7): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Leader Prototypicality
173
Table (5-20): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Affective Organisational Commitment
Intercept 1.68 3.87 .44 .000
SMN .09 .88 .11 .38
LP .8 11.4 .07 .000
SMN x LP .09 3 .03 .003
intercept 2.7 5.4 .49 .000
UB -.18 -1.29 .14 .198
LP .84 12.08 .07 .000
UB x LP .005 .03 .171 .865
intercept 1.35 2.79 .48 .006
SVA .21 1.6 .13 .106
LP .79 10.7 .07 .000
SVA x LP .07 2.2 .03 .028
intercept 1.7 3.56 .47 .001
PR .138 3.56 .14 .315
LP .8 11.18 .07 .000
PR x LP .03 1.15 .03 .253
intercept 1.28 2.47 .52 .015
SE .23 .13 1.75 .083
LP .78 10.87 .07 .000
SE x LP .089 2.79 .03 .006
intercept .75 1.3 .59 .210
SQ .37 2.5 .15 .013
174
LP .77 10.9 .07 .000
SQ x LP .06 2.12 .03 .035
To examine the moderator impact of leader prototypicality on the relationships between
the charismatic leadership six dimensions and group relation conflict multilevel
modelling has been utilized. Table (5-21) and figure (5-8) demonstrated the interactions
result. As can been seen there are significant interactions for (SMS), (SVA), (PR), (SE)
and (SQ) X leader prototypicality. This interaction ranged from -.03 to -.07, significant
at .05, 01 and .0001.Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between (SMS), (SVA),
(PR), (SE) and (SQ) and group relation conflict are stronger when moderated by leader
prototypicality. In contrast, there were no significant interactions found for (UB) X
leader prototypicality. This means that the relationships between (UB) and group
relation conflict do not change when moderated by leader prototypicality.
Figure (5-8): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Leader Prototypicality
175
Table (5-21): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Group
Relation Conflict
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group Relation Conflict
Intercept -2.06 -6.98 .29 .000
SMN -.33 -4.59 .07 .000
LP -.17 -3.76 .045 .000
SMN x LP -.07 -3.45 .019 .001
intercept -.23 -2.3 .09 .24
UB -.18 -4.2 .04 .000
LP -.23 -2.3 .09 .24
UB x LP -.005 -.3 .018 .767
Intercept -1.66 -5.27 .31 .000
SVA .46 -5.5 .08 .000
LP -.15 -3.4 .04 .001
SVA x LP -.07 -4.01 .02 .000
intercept -2.55 -7.37 .35 .000
PR -.25 -2.49 .098 .014
LP -.18 -3.99 .045 .000
PR x LP -.039 -2.16 .018 .032
Intercept -1.5 -4.56 .34 .000
SE -.49 -5.82 .08 .000
LP -.14 -3.04 .04 .003
SE x LP -.05 -2.29 .02 .023
Intercept -1.6 -3.9 .42 .000
176
SQ -.44 -4.3 .10 .000
LP -.16 -3.6 .04 .000
SQ x LP -.03 -2.1 .02 .036
Multilevel modelling has been run to analyse the moderator impact of leader
prototypicality on the relationships between the six dimensions of the charismatic
leadership and group cohesion table (5-22) and figure (5-9) demonstrated the results of
interaction. As can been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to
member‟s needs (SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR),
sensitivity to the environment (SE), does not maintain the status quo (SQ) X leader
prototypicality. This interaction ranged from .04 to .14, significant at .05, 01 and .0001.
Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between sensitivity to members' needs
(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the
environment (SE), does not maintain status quo (SQ) and group cohesion are stronger
when moderated by leader prototypicality. In contrast, no significant interaction was
found for unconventional behaviour (UB) X leader prototypicality. This means that the
relationships between unconventional behaviour (UB) and group cohesion do not
change when moderated by leader prototypicality.
177
Figure (5-9): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Leader Prototypicality
Table (5-22): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group Cohesion
intercept 3.4 6.8 .5 .000
SMN .29 2.37 12 .019
LP .22 2.7 .08 .006
SMN x LP .13 3.8 .03 .000
intercept 3.65 6.4 .57 .000
178
UB .29 1.9 .16 .066
LP .21 2.7 .08 .007
UB x LP .04 1.3 .03 .196
intercept 3.08 5.59 .55 .000
SVA .39 2.72 .14 .008
LP .21 2.59 .08 .010
SVA x LP .139 4.27 .03 .000
intercept 3.76 6.78 .55 .000
PR .26 1.62 .16 .109
LP .21 2.66 .08 .008
PR x LP .08 2.53 .03 .012
intercept 2.64 4.5 .58 .000
SE .53 3.59 .15 .000
LP .15 1.93 .07 .000
SE x LP .1 2.93 .03 .004
intercept 2.76 3.99 .69 .000
SQ .49 2.8 .17 .006
LP .18 2.3 .08 .23
SQ x LP .08 2.9 .03 .004
Multilevel modelling has also been utilized to examine the moderator impact of team
identity on the relationship between the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and
affective organisational commitment. Table (5-23) and figure (5-10) demonstrated the
results of the interaction. As can been seen there are significant interactions for
sensitivity to member needs (SMS), Personal risk (PR) and X team identity. This
interaction ranged from .1 to .05; significant at .05 and 01. Thus, it can be argued that
the relationship between SMS and PR and affective organisational commitment are
stronger when moderated by team identity. In contrast, there were no significant
179
interactions found for unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation
(SVA), sensitivity to member needs (SE) and does not maintain status quo (SQ) X
leadership team identity. This means that the relationships between unconventional
behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment
(SE), does not maintain the status quo (SQ) and affective organisational commitment do
not change when moderated by team identity.
Figure (5-10): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Team Identity
180
Table (5-23): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Affective
Organisational Commitment
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Affective Organisational Commitment
Intercept 1.29 2.39 .54 .018
SMN .18 1.7 .11 .94
TI 1.097 12.29 .08 .000
SMN x TI .05 .9 .03 .04
Intercept .8 1.27 .6 .206
UB .012 .09 .14 .929
TI 1.14 13.1 .08 .000
UB x TI .013 .47 .03 .638
Intercept 1.58 2.8 .56 .006
SVA .29 2.35 .12 020
TI 1.07 11.9 .09 .000
SVA x TI .4 11.29 .03 . 002
intercept 1.4 2.46 .57 .015
PR .245 1.8 .14 .073
TI 1.09 12.5 .09 .000
PR x TI . 1 .53 .028 .006
Intercept 1.55 2.63 .59 .010
SE .25 1.9 .13 .055
TI 1.08 12.05 .09 .000
SE x TI .4 10.41 .03 .006
Intercept 2.2 3.4 .66 .001
SQ .44 2.98 .146 .004
181
TI 1.07 12.29 .09 .000
SQ x TI .02 1.02 .02 .308
To examine the moderator impact of team identity on the relationships between the six
dimensions of charismatic leadership and group relation conflict multilevel modelling
has been utilised. Table (5-24) and figure (5-11) demonstrated the result of the
interactions. As can been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to
member needs (SMS), unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision articulation
(SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environmental (SE) and X team identity.
This interaction ranged from -.03 to -.4; significant at .05. Thus, it can be argued that
the relationship between sensitivity to member needs (SMS), unconventional behaviour
(UB), strategic vision articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR) and sensitivity to
environmental (SE) and group relation conflict are stronger when moderated by team
identity. In contrast, no significant interaction was found for does not maintain the
status quo (SQ) and X team identity. This means that the relationships between SQ and
group relation conflict do not change when moderated by team identity.
182
Figure (5-11): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Team Identity
Table (5-24): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group Relation
Conflict
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group Relation Conflict
intercept -1.95 -5.4 .36 .000
SMN -1.95 -5.4 .36 .000
TI -.089 -1.5 .05 .128
SMN x TI -.03 -2.1 .06 .037
intercept -2.26 -5.03 .45 .000
183
UB -.27 -5.03 .102 .007
TI -.15 -2.6 .05 .009
UB x TI -.39 -.017 1.13 .002
intercept -1.59 -4.3 .37 .000
SVA -.53 -6.47 .08 .000
TI -.06 -1.04 .06 .297
SVA x TI -.03 -2.03 .02 .04
intercept -2.33 -5.57 .42 .000
PR -.31 -3.09 .10 .003
TI -.12 -1.99 .06 .046
PR x TI -.04 -2.08 .02 .038
intercept -1.38 -3.59 .39 .000
SE -.55 -6.5 .08 .000
TI -.06 -1.06 .06 .288
SE x TI -.04 -1.9 .02 .054
intercept -1.39 -2.96 .47 .004
SQ -.5 -4.7 .11 .000
TI -.11 -1.9 .06 .061
SQ x TI -.02 -1.59 .014 .114
In order to identify the moderator impact of team identity on the relationship between
charismatic leadership‟s six dimensions and group cohesion, multilevel modelling has
been utilized. Table (5-25) and figure (5-12) demonstrated the interactive results. As can
been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to member‟s needs (SMS),
strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and personal
risk (PR) X team identity. This interaction ranged from .04 to .22, significant at .05 and
01. Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between sensitivity to member‟s needs
(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE),
personal risk (PR) and group cohesion are stronger when moderated by team identity. In
184
contrast, no significant interactions were found linking unconventional behaviour (UB)
and does not maintain the status quo (SQ) with X team identity. This means that the
relationships between unconventional behaviour (UB) and does not maintain status quo
(SQ) and group cohesion do not change when moderated by team identity.
Figure (5-12): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales
and Team Identity
Table (5-25): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated
Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group Cohesion
Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.
Group Cohesion
intercept 2.8 4.5 .6 .000
SMN .3 2.6 .12 .012
185
TI .26 2.5 .1 .013
SMN x TI .04 1.4 .03 .054
intercept 2.69 3.7 .7 .000
UB .3 2.09 .15 .040
TI .31 3.08 .099 .002
UB x TI .03 1.05 .03 .295
intercept 2.5 3.86 .66 .000
SVA .42 2.87 .14 .005
TI .238 2.3 .1 .022
SVA x TI .1 4.44 .03 .004
intercept 2.9 4.34 .67 .000
PR .28 1.72 .16 .089
TI .29 2.9 .1 .004
PR x TI .22 2.7 .03 .004
intercept 2.14 3.18 .67 .002
SE .5 3.57 .15 .001
TI .21 2.03 .1 .043
SE x TI .1 2.99 .03 .005
intercept 2.07 2.64 .78 .009
SQ .49 2.79 .18 .006
TI .26 2.58 .1 .010
SQ x TI .005 .194 .03 .849
Although the interactive effects of leader prototypicality and team identification on
charismatic leadership (K-C scale) can be seen as a whole, not all this scale‟s factors
involved the researcher‟s multilevel analysis for those factors that independently
interacted with those proposed moderators which were mentioned previously. More
specifically, there are significant interactions that are sensitivity to member‟s needs
186
(SMN), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), does not maintain
status quo (SQ) and X leader prototypicality) affecting the relationship between these
subscales and affective organisational commitment.
There are also significant interactions {sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic
vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environment (SE)
and does not maintain status quo (SQ) with leader prototypicality} influencing the
relationship between these five subscales and affective organisational commitment.
Finally, {sensitivity to member needs (SMN), strategic vision and articulation (SVA),
Personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and does not maintain status quo
(SQ) have significant interactions with leader prototypicality} on the relationship with
these dimensions and group cohesion.
Moreover, when multilevel analysis was run to examine the moderator impact of team
identity on the relationship between the six subscales and the three leaders‟
effectiveness, the strongest interactions were found to be between the six dimensions of
charismatic leadership and team identity with regards to the relationship between these
dimensions and group relation conflict {sensitivity to member needs (SMN),
unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk
(PR) and sensitivity to the environment (SE) with team identity}. Whereas, the weakest
interactions were found between the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and team
identification in reference to the relationship with these dimensions and affective
organisational commitment {sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and personal risk (PR)
with team identity}. The same result was obtained when examining the moderator
impact of team identity and the dimensions of charismatic leadership on group cohesion
{sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and personal risk (PR) with team identity}.
5.4. Summary
This chapter has illustrated the results from the study survey involving SABIC, with
data collected from all regions within Saudi Arabia. The survey findings relating to all
187
parts of the survey instrument were analysed and possible indications from the
outcomes have been highlighted.
After nesting the employees (level 1) to their leaders (level 2) analysis of multilevel
modelling were used to identify the relationship between the study concepts and the
study outcomes. The purpose was to identify the effect of interaction between the study
concepts (charismatic leadership and ethical leadership) and the two moderator
variables (leader prototypicality and team identity) on leader effectiveness
(organisational commitment group relation conflict and group cohesion). Support was
found for the hypotheses that assumed a direct relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness (affective organisational commitment,
group relation conflict and group cohesion) when examined as a whole for each of the
subscales, with the exception of the relationship between unconventional behaviours
(UB) and affective organisational commitment. Support was also found for those
hypotheses which supposed a direct relationship between ethical leadership behaviour
and leader effectiveness. There was also support for the hypotheses describing the
moderator impact for leader prototypicality and team identity and the relationship
between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness and between ethical leadership
and leader effectiveness. However, when examining the moderator impact for leader
prototypicality and team identity on the relationship between charismatic leadership
subscales and leader effectiveness the results were slightly different than when these
moderators were examined for charismatic leadership scale as a whole (see the
discussion in detail on pages 157-171).
The analysis of the quantitative data for this study will be elaborated on further in the
next chapter, which will discuss and present an interpretation of the survey findings.
Table (5-26) presents the hypotheses and the research outcomes. The „conclusion‟
column indicates whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected.
188
Table (5-26): Conclusions Regarding the Hypotheses.
Hypotheses Finding Conclusion
Charismatic leadership
H1a: There is a positive relationship between
charismatic leadership behaviour and
the level of cohesion in culturally
diverse workplaces.
(β = .51, p < 0.001)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.39, p < 0.001) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.52, p < 0.0010) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.38, p < 0.01) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.62, p < 0.0010) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.59, p < 0.001) Supported
Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.37, p < 0.024) Supported
H1b: There is a negative relationship between
charismatic leadership behaviour and
the level of conflict in culturally diverse
workplaces.
(β = -.57, p < 0.001)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = -0.42, p < 0.001) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = -0.55, p < 0.000) Supported
Personal risk (β = -0.35, p < 0.001) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = -0.58, p < 0.000) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.85, p < 0.001) Supported
Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.54, p < 0.000) Supported
H1c: There is a positive relationship between
charismatic leadership behaviour and
the level of employees’ affective
commitment to their organisation in
culturally diverse workplaces.
(β = 0.85, p < 0.001)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.6, p < 0.000) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.6, p < 0.000) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.61, p < 0.000) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.67, p < 0.000) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.75, p < 0.000) Supported
Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.2 p < 0.231) Rejected
Ethical Leadership
H2a: There is a positive relationship between
ethical leadership and the level of
(β = .37, p < 0.001)
Supported
189
cohesion in culturally diverse
workplaces.
H2c: There is a positive relationship between
leader ethicality as leadership
behaviour and the level of employees’
commitment to the organisation in
culturally diverse workplaces.
(β = -.48, p < 0.001)
Supported
H2c: There is a positive relationship between
leader ethicality as leadership
behaviour and the level of employees’
commitment to the organisation in
culturally diverse workplaces.
(β = 1.1, p < 0.001)
Supported
H3: The relationship between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness will be moderated
by leadership prototypes.
Leadership prototypes and charismatic
leadership (Moderator)
The relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour and group
cohesion will be moderated by
leadership prototypes.
Charismatic leadership components
(β = . 7, p < .005)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s need (β = 0.13, p < 0.000) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.139, p < 0.000) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.8, p < 0.012) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.1, p < 0.004) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.08, p < 0.004) Supported
Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.04, p < 0.196) Rejected
The relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour and group relation
conflict will be moderated by leadership
prototypes.
Charismatic leadership components
(β = -.32, p < .003)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = --0.097, p < 0.001) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.7, p < 0.000) Supported
Personal risk (β = -0.039, p < .032) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = -0.05, p < 0.023) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.03, p < 0.036) Supported
190
Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.005, p < 0.767) Rejected
The relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviours and affective
commitment will be moderated by
leadership prototypes.
Charismatic leadership components
(β = .62, p < .000)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.09, p < 0.003) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.7, p < 0.028) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.03, p < .253) Rejected
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.089, p < 0.006) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.06, p < 0.035) Supported
Unconventional behaviour
(β = 0.005, p < 0.865) Rejected
Leadership prototypes and ethical
leadership (Moderator)
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour group relation conflicts will
be moderated by leadership prototypes.
(β = -.3, p < .003)
Supported
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour and group cohesion and
affective commitment will be
moderated by leadership prototypes.
(β =.3, p < .005)
Supported
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour and affective commitment
will be moderated by leadership
prototypes.
(β =.5, p < .005)
Supported
H4: The relationship between leadership behaviours (Charismatic and ethical) and leader
effectiveness will be moderated by team identity
Team’s identity and charismatic leadership
(Moderator)
The relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour group cohesion will be
moderated by the team‟s identity.
Charismatic leadership components
(β =.7, p < .004)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.04, p < 0.054) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.1, p < 0.004) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.22, p < 0.004) Supported
191
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.1, p < 0.005) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.005, p < 0.846) Rejected
Unconventional behaviour
(β = 0.03, p < 0.259) Rejected
The relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour group relation
conflicts will be moderated by team
identity.
Charismatic leadership components
(β = -.8, p < 0.05)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = -0.03, p < 0.001) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = -0.03, p < 0.04) Supported
Personal risk (β = -0.04, p < 0.038) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = -0.04, p < 0.054) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.02, p < 0.114) Reject
Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.39, p < 0.002) Supported
The relationship between charismatic
leadership behaviour and affective
commitment will be moderated by team‟s
identity.
Charismatic leadership components
(β =.6, p < 0.005)
Supported
Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.05, p < 0.04) Supported
Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0. 4, p < 0.002) Supported
Personal risk (β = 0.1, p < 0.006) Supported
Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.4, p < 0.0016) Supported
Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.2, p < 0.308) Rejected
Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.013, p < 0.638) Rejected
Team’s identity and ethical leadership
(Moderator)
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour and group cohesion will be
moderated by team‟s identity.
(β = .51, p < .000)
Supported
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour and group relation conflict will
be moderated by team‟s identity.
(β = -.5, p < .001)
Supported
The relationship between ethical leadership
behaviour and affective commitment will
be moderated by team‟s identity.
(β =.6, p < .000)
Supported
192
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
6.1 Introduction
The recognition of the importance of the impact of leaders on organisations is being
reflected by increasing interest in the leadership role amongst researchers.
Correspondingly, the purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the role
of leadership behaviour on the effectiveness of that leadership in culturally diverse work
environments. In addition, it examines the moderating impact of social identity theory
(team identity and leader prototypicality) in this relationship. In order to lend support to
the existing body of knowledge in this field, this chapter offers a comprehensive
discussion and interpretation of results; the findings of the quantitative study data were
presented in chapters four and five. Furthermore, it offers quantitative results by
scrutinising and evaluating relevant literature. The model figure (6.1) presented below
aims to investigate these relationships and the moderating impact of social identity on
these relations.
Figure: (6.1): Study Model
193
Although both leadership behaviour and social identity have been separately linked to
positive organisational outcomes in a range of situations, previous research has not fully
evaluated their effect on leaders‟ effectiveness. For example; charismatic leadership, as
a certain collection of leadership behaviour (sensitivity to the environment context,
strategic vision and articulation, sensitivity to member needs, personal risk,
unconventional behaviour and does not maintain status quo), has been confirmed to be
effective regarding organisational outcomes as a result of inspiring followers and
motivating them with regards to values (Reave, 2005). Other researchers emphasise the
importance of team identity, in terms of leaders‟ fostering of group prototypicality
interaction, as key factor impacting leadership effectiveness (Hogg, 2001, Cicero et al.,
2008). The contribution of this thesis is to integrate these two important concepts, to
identify both their independent and interactive effects with the aim of reliably predicting
leaders‟ effectiveness. These results expand on existing literature in the leadership field
by revealing that charismatic and ethical leadership and social identity (leader
prototypicality and team identity) are contingently, rather than independently, related to
leadership effectiveness.
This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the analysis of the results and
findings of quantitative data presented in Chapter Six with investigation of relevant
literature. This chapter divided into two main parts the first part discusses charismatic
leadership and leader effectiveness and the moderator role of social identity theory
(SIT) result, and the second part discusses the results related to ethical leadership and
leader effectiveness and the moderator role of SIT.
6.2. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of
SIT
As illustrated previously, there is little scientifically evidence published on how the role
of charismatic leadership influences leadership effectiveness (defined here as low
conflict relations, high team cohesion and high affective commitment) and the role of
social identity (leader prototypicality and team identification) as a moderator of these
relationships. This study focuses on those leadership behaviours that assist multicultural
organisations in overcoming culturally diverse challenges successfully, based on an
194
integration of these behaviours with leader prototypicality and team identity.
The initial concern of this study was to identify what leaders in culturally diverse work
places are perceived to do; specifically in terms of behaviour that may create or enhance
cohesion amongst teams, improve affective commitment and reduce conflict in group
relationships. It was found that teams which perceive their leaders to exhibit charismatic
leadership behaviours have less internal conflict, experience more cohesion as a team
and felt more committed to their organisation than those that do not perceive their leader
exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours. This result is consistent with previous
research into leadership in organisations, including empirical studies that emphasise the
importance of exhibiting more charismatic leadership behaviours in order to obtain team
cohesion (Jiang et al., 2001; Thite, 2000 and Zaccaro et al., 2001, Wang et al., 2005,
Wendt et al., 2009). Other studies also highlight the importance of charismatic
leadership behaviours in relation to employees‟ organisational commitment (e.g.
Rowden, 2000; Akroyd et al., 2007, 2009; Bamberg and Akroyd, 2008; Shastri, Mishra
and Sinha, 2010).
Essentially, team cohesion and affective commitment have a direct effect on employee
performance and attitude. Thus, if leaders are selected on the basis of the possession of
charismatic leadership skills they should enhance team cohesion and result in an
affective commitment. This analysis confirms previous research in this field, which has
pointed to job satisfaction and group cohesion as significant measures of team
effectiveness (e.g. Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt and Ruddy,1997; Sundstrom, De Meuse
and Futrell, 1990). Additionally, recent research has established a strong correlation
between team cohesion and a team‟s perception of its own performance (Chang and
Bordia, 2001; Jung and Sosik, 2002). Tekleab et al.‟s (2009) study revealed that
members of teams who have high levels of cohesion were more satisfied and were more
focused on remaining with the team, than those whose team cohesion was lower. It can
also be stated that when organisations identify organisational commitment as indicators
of acceptance and belief in organisational goals and values, they typically become more
interested in employee loyalty.
With respect to the relationship between internal group conflict and charismatic
195
leadership behaviours, to the author‟s knowledge, no targeted empirical study that has
been conducted to date. The results of this study fill the gap left by prior research as
they clearly reveal a correlation between perceived leadership behaviour and conflict in
group relations. Thus, the theoretical work into leadership and organisations supports
this finding by suggesting that charismatic leaders are appropriately positioned to
reduce conflict in workplace relations and minimise aggression (Bass, 1985, 1990;
Dionne et al., 2003; Hepworth and Towler, 2004; Mohammed and Angell, 2004).
It is likely, then, that leaders who exhibit charismatic leadership characteristics will be
able to circumvent the negative influence of relationship conflict in diverse teams and
reduce the negative consequences of relationship conflict. This point of view is
supported theoretically by Edmondson and Smith who asserted that reducing
relationship conflict, especially when it engages crucial subjects facing the team,
“served the decision-making process, helping to deepen the team‟s understanding of
each other and of the issues, and helping the team make progress.” (2006, p. 19).
Tekleab et al., (2009) also supports this conclusion, stating that when teams overcome
conflict effectively, trust will be developed between team members, which in turn lead
to higher levels of team cohesion, perceived team performance, satisfaction with the
team, team viability and better team effectiveness.
In summary, this study's findings supported the prediction that charismatic leadership
was related to mitigating conflict in groups, assisting group cohesion and in improving
commitment and attachment to an organisation. Thus, this supports the view that
leadership is a process intrinsically linked to group membership and related processes
(Hogg et al., 2003; van Knippenberg and Van Shie, 2000).
It is widely argued that organisations with employees that have a low level of
relationship conflict, good cohesion and affective commitment to their goals and beliefs
will remain in the workforce longer, which reduces costs associated with employee
turnover and replacement. These costs are derived from several different sources,
including recruitment and selection of replacements, administrative team expenses,
advertising, screening and interviewing and applicant testing assessment (International
Survey Research, n.d.; Frank, Finnegan and Taylor, 2004). This is consistent with
previous research in this area that has argued that managing employees commitment to
196
organisations is a critical element of the leadership process as it has been found to
decrease turnover (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990, Zhou, 2009), raise contributions to
knowledge (Alvesson, 2001), promote organisational citizenship type behaviours
(Meyer et al., 2002) and decrease absenteeism (Eby et al., 1999).
Notably, all these studies examined these relationships in homogeneous workplaces
whereas this study examines this relationship in culturally diverse work place and has
obtained the same result. Therefore, multi cultural organisations are interested in
developing and improving managerial competences. Specifically the charismatic
leadership behaviour of leaders increases their effectiveness and organisational practices
and performance.
However, there is growing empirical evidence based on social identity theory that the
effectiveness of specific leadership behaviours will depend on a follower‟s identity
level- “individual/collective” (e.g. Conger, Kanungo, and Menon, 2000; Shamir et al.,
1993). Identity level, in turn, can determine the effectiveness of leadership processes:
Yorges et al., 1999 state that, “...charismatic and transformational leadership derives
part of its effectiveness from its effect on follower identification with the collective” (p.
831). Thus, it can be argued that charismatic leadership will be more effective when the
employees‟ self identity is at the collective level. Therefore, by collating the body of
leadership effectiveness research, the purpose of this study was to extend previous
research on the relationship between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness.
Specifically, it is argued that the value of the relationship between leadership behaviour
and leader effectiveness in reducing conflict in group relations, promoting group
cohesion and affective commitment can be explained via follower identification at the
collective level.
This study‟s results clearly indicate that team identity moderates the relationship
between charismatic leadership and the three indicators of leaders‟ effectiveness (low
relationship conflict, high level of team cohesion and effective commitment to the
organisation). This finding is consistent with most recent studies in this area, which is
regarded as evidence that charismatic leadership derives its effectiveness from the
impact of followers‟ identification with the collective (Shamir et al. 1993; Choi and
197
Mai-Dalton, 1998; Yorges, Weiss and Strickland, 1999; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; by
Paul et al., 2001; Kark et al., 2003). Social identification and collective self-construal
researchers have argued that follower self-identification is regarded as a key determiner
of leadership effectiveness (Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; Lord and
Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).
Therefore, this study suggests that a charismatic leadership style in general enhanced
followers‟ interest in the collective and, consequently, levels of group relationship
conflict were reduced and the level of group cohesion and affective commitment were
increased. Furthermore, the results in this study add to previous research findings by
providing evidence that team identification moderates the relationship between
charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness; defined in this study as low group
relationship conflict, a high level of team cohesion and effective organisational
commitment. These findings imply that although this study reveals that charismatic
leadership has a positive effect on leader effectiveness, a team with a strong team
identity, combined with charismatic leadership behaviours, fosters this effectiveness.
Accordingly, it can be argued that lack of shared identity amongst the group members
may affect leadership effectiveness. This argument is supported by Reicher et al. (2005)
who emphasised that leadership is dependent upon the existence of a shared social
identity. Without such an identity there is nothing to attach leaders and followers
together, there is no harmony for a leader to represent and therefore leadership is
unattainable. Hence, those who are on high in individualism identity are more
committed to their individual goals and interests rather committed to group goals and
interests (Ellemers et al., 1999).
This study also proposed that a leader‟s prototypicality of the collective moderates the
relationship between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. According to
scholars in social identity as pertaining to leadership, group member are more likely to
trust that a leader who is prototypical supports the group‟s best interests, which in turn,
improves leadership effectiveness (Giessner et. al., 2003 and van Knippenberg et. al.,
2005). Consequently, this study result indicates that leader prototypicality is a
significant predictor of leader effectiveness. Therefore, it can be argued that a team
member in SABIC is more likely to be attracted to leaders who are prototypical and
198
most representative of the collective‟s social identity. Put another way, the study
showed that the effects of charismatic leader behaviour on leadership effectiveness were
stronger for leaders who were more prototypical for the group than for leaders who were
less prototypical of the group. As far as the author is aware there is no empirical study
examining; the moderating role of leader prototypicality, and the relationship between
charismatic leadership behaviours, and the three indicators of leader effectiveness under
review. This study‟s results are partly supported in previous literature regarding social
identity theories of leadership, in respect to the role of leader prototypicality on that
leader‟s effectiveness (e.g. Chrobot-Mason et al., 2007; van Knippenberg, et al., 2004;
Brodbeck et al., 2000; Trice and Beyer, 1993; Turner, 1998; Widmeyer and Williams,
1991). The studies listed illustrated that leader prototypicality is a crucial determinant of
perceived leader effectiveness. Scholars in the field of social identity, e.g. Hogg, 1992;
van Knippenberg, Lossie and Wilke, 1994, have argued that leaders that are more
representative of the team are more influential and as a result more attractive.
According to the study results it can be argued that leader effectiveness can be enhanced
by a leader who is more representative of group members. This notion is supported in
the relevant literature; e.g. Hogg (2001) stated that through leader prototype and
support, a leader increases his/her power to influence the group‟s behaviour and
attitude. In a conflict situation, for example, social identity becomes more significant
(Tsui and Gutek, 1999) and members are then most likely to confer leadership on
whosoever is perceived to be most prototypical of their group (Fielding and Hogg,
1997; Hogg, 1996). Hence if charismatic leadership is the prototype of the team
members in SABIC, leadership effectiveness is increased. It can be argued that to
increase leader effectiveness, SABIC should select people whose prototype is that of a
charismatic leader. Thus, team leaders have the potential, through role-modelling, to
influence their teams to behave positively and constructively (Williams et al., 2010).
However, in situations where followers‟ values differ from their leaders, they do not
experience pride on their leaders‟ behalf (Felfe and Schyns, 2010).
Closer analysis of the sub dimensions of charismatic leadership has revealed a
significant positive relationship between five of the six charismatic leadership
subscales; (namely, sensitivity to member‟s needs, vision and articulation,
199
environmental sensitivity, personal risk and failure to maintain the status quo) and
group relation conflict, group cohesion and affective organisational commitment,
indicating that charismatic leadership‟s five dimensions are significant predictors of
employee‟s group relation conflict, group cohesion and affective organisational
commitment. Whereas, there is no significant variation between unconventional
behaviours (UB) and group relationship conflicts, group cohesion and affective
organisational commitment. The following part discuses this result further.
The results of this research have confirmed that sensitivity to one‟s environment (SE) is
an important behaviour that is perceived by followers; the SABIC employees‟ result
found that under investigation asserted that a leader with sensitivity to environmental
behaviour would decrease group relationship conflict and increase cohesion, and thus,
affective commitment to the organisation. Sensitivity to the environment as defined by
Conger and Kanungo (1998) is behaviour that followers perceive when leaders identify
new environmental challenges and opportunities by gathering external and internal
information to evaluate the environmental circumstances in which the organisation
operates accurately. Leader‟s evaluation of followers‟ skills, abilities, and needs is
regarded as an essential factor of internal environmental analysis. As emphasised by
Conger (1989); when subordinates recognise that leaders have a deep empathy with
their views and their needs, they are willing to internalise such leaders‟ visions, thus
leader and follower will exist in a symbiotic relationship. One possible explanation for
this finding may be observed through applying Hofstede‟s (1980-2001) extensive
research into national cultures. He indicated that perceiving one‟s actual motivation in
terms of a subordinate‟s views and needs is regarded as feature of collectivist societies.
Thus, it is not a surprise that in the SABIC sample, which was considered as based on a
society, leaders‟ sensitivity to the environment is an expected behaviour. It was also
perceived by followers that this behaviour in their leaders relates to their relationships in
terms of conflict, cohesion and affective commitment to the organisation. This result
can be justified by Bass‟ (1990) study in Mexico, which indicated that charismatic
leadership would definitely be effective in collectivist cultures. This was supported by
Pillai‟s (1998) finding, who concluded that charismatic leadership behaviours related
positively with societies that have a collectivist orientation.
In circumstances where leaders do not properly assess either limitations in the
200
environment or the resources available, their approaches may be ineffective. This is why
it is crucial for leaders to make realistic assessments to effect successful changes within
the organisation; especially as charisma is linked to success and therefore by extension
to sensitivity toward the environment.
The results of this research confirmed that sensitivity to member needs (SMN) is an
important behaviour perceived by followers. Indeed, the SABIC‟s employees under
investigation asserted that the behaviour of leaders with sensitivity to member‟s needs
will decrease conflict in group relations and increase cohesion and affective
commitment to the organisation. The sensitivity to member needs scale was developed
by Conger and Kanungo (1998) to measure the leader‟s ability to show sensitivity to the
needs and feelings of organisational members. By knowing their followers‟ needs, a
leader readily develops the ability to articulate their vision in such a way that it meets
the needs of the followers and prompts the followers to renounce their personal needs in
favour of the needs of the collective (Shamir et al., 1993). An important part of this
dimension is the leaders‟ ability to perceive the capabilities and skills of other
organisational members. Additionally, this can be used to measure the leader‟s
expression of personal concern for the feelings of other members in the organisation.
A possible explanation of these results can be found by consulting Hofstede (2001),
who argued that sensitivity to member‟s needs is a feminine and collectivistic
behaviour. These leadership behaviours include showing sensitivity and often
expressing personal concern for the needs and feelings of other members in the
organisation. In contrast, leaders in individualistic societies put their own interests
ahead of their followers‟ needs, focusing on maintaining their own interests and
dominance over others (Popper, 1999, 2002; Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). This style
of leadership is likely to create centralised authoritarian structures that maintain one-
way communication, show much less warmth and empathy and have recourse to
convenient external moral standards that suit their self-interest. This style of leadership
tends to have a negative influence on leaders‟ effectiveness, which in turn leads to the
production of followers with a self-perception (Kacmar and Ferris, 1991; Johnston,
2000; Howell and Shamir, 2005). This research contributes to knowledge by presenting
empirical evidence of the importance of leader sensitivity to member‟s needs (SMN)
increasing leader‟s effectiveness.
201
The results of this subscale revealed that strategic vision and articulation (SVA) was an
important behaviour perceived by respondents of SABIC to reduce group conflict and
promote team cohesion and affective commitment. Conger and Kanungo (1998)
described strategic vision and articulation as comprising the leader‟s ability to
accomplish considerable changes in the present situation by creating idealised goals.
These goals as supported by the follower should be visible and meet their needs as well
as the superior goals of the organisation.
As revealed by the demographic analysis for this study, roughly two thirds of the
sample is from Arab countries, India, the Philippines, Malaysia and China, which are
regarded as having a high power distance rating (Hofstede, 2009). Therefore, one
possible explanation of this finding is that followers‟ perception of strategic vision and
articulation is related to power distance (Hofstede, 1991). This assumption is further
asserted in Hofstede (2001), wherein power distance and uncertainty avoidance, are
argued as valuable for explaining behaviours in organisations. The power distance index
measures the extent to which a culture accepts inequalities between various groups
within that culture, such as social classes and organisational hierarchy.
According to the discussion above, two thirds of the sample are considered high in
terms of power distance dimensions and therefore they exhibit some of the salient
values and behaviours that are typical of societies with a high power distance index;
such as authority based on traditions, followers believe leaders are a different type,
people who hold the power are entitled to privileges, leaders depend on official rules
and information is controlled by hierarchy, among other levels (Hofstede, 2001). These
values and behaviours produced a reduced feeling of empowerment; autocratic
leadership is typified by poor communication (Jayasingam, 2009; Angus-Leppan and
Metcalf, 2010). In a “traditional” hierarchical organisational structure, for example, the
employees mostly communicate with their immediate managers and with their
immediate co-workers. Structuring organisations in this way limits information flow
and obstructs the sharing and transfer of knowledge throughout all the organisational
levels (see Erez, 2010; Vorakulpipat et al., 2010; Friesl, et al., 2011). Therefore, this
study adds evidence to that of other scholars in this field who describe the crucial role
of a leader‟s strategic vision and articulation in regards to enhancing their effectiveness.
202
Charismatic leadership personal risk behaviours (PR) were an important behaviour
perceived by respondents of SABIC with regards to reducing group conflict and
promoting team cohesion and affective commitment. Leaders, who were involved in
actions that required engagement in substantial personal risk with potential for self-
sacrifice, as well as sustained high personal costs for the advantage to the organisation,
were supposed to be highly successful agents of change by subordinates. This finding is
consistent with Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) assertion that leaders must build a sense
of trust among their followers through personal example and risk taking. Such
exemplary willingness to court personal risks may include risking personal finances,
tenure in the job itself, and may also involve the probability of losing power, authority,
or position in the organisation. The more leaders exhibit that they are willing to incur
high personal costs for the good of the group‟s shared vision; the more followers will
believe them to be worthy of complete trust through organisational development.
Additional support has been provided by van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg‟s four
studies from 2005; these revealed that leader self-sacrifice contributes to leadership
effectiveness, including willingness to engage in organisational change, perceptions of
effectiveness and levels of follower performance.
The conception of leaders sacrificing their time and resources in the pursuit of a goal is
also related to Hofstede‟s interpretation of individualism vs. collectivism. As discussed
previously, the sample for this study is regarded as having a collectivist orientation,
because more than two thirds of the study sample in Hofstede‟s study were collective
nations; i.e. the Middle East, Pakistan, Indian and the Philippines. This consistency
could explain the significance of the relationship found between charismatic leadership,
personal risk and an employees‟ commitment to an organisation.
However, careful considerations should be observed when concluding that being self
sacrificial is always a certain path to leadership effectiveness and positive follower
assessment. Thus, there may be some situations in which a leader‟s self-sacrifice may
create a modest additional positive impact on followers and the organisation; however,
sacrifice may also have significant negative results for the leader him/herself.
Apparently, then, leaders should not be extremely self-sacrificial and there is no
203
requisite to continually go beyond their self-interest (Avolio and Locke, 2002). To a
certain extent, the authors recommended that leaders must be capable and willing to
demonstrate self-sacrificing behaviour occasionally. This study adds evidence to this
knowledge and empirical confirmation the importance of the personal risk taken by
leader‟s to enhance their effectiveness.
Across all charismatic leadership behaviour dimensions, there is a drive not to maintain
the status quo (SQ) regarding the strongest relationship to group relations conflict,
group cohesion and effective organisational commitment in SABIC. This means that
leaders desire to transform, rather than simply to maintain. They recover failing
companies, develop new products and modernise processes. Scholars in the field of
organisational development have conducted a considerable amount of research
supporting change as a possible solution for organisational achievement and survival
(Lines, 2004; Pfeffer, 1994; Piderit, 2000; Stace and Dunphy, 1991). Conger and
Kanungo (1998) stated that “charismatic leaders are always seen as organisational
reformers or entrepreneurs. In other words, they act as agents of innovative and radical
change” (p. 53). Conger and Kanungo (1998) and Levay (2010) mentioned that
sensitivity to identifying a shortage within the existing environment is regarded as one
of the charismatic leadership behaviours that distinguish a given leader from any other
leadership style. Mounting evidence suggests that altering the characteristics and
behaviours associated with individual leaders can impact on the success or failure of
initiatives to promote organisational change (e.g. Seyranian and Bligh, 2008; Bommer,
Rich and Rubin, 2005; Waldman, Javidan and Varella, 2004). Thus, in most cases, it is
important to provide employees with sufficient information regarding the necessity,
purpose behind, and implications of any change to improve their ability to manage it.
When employees recognise the importance and value of a change and are willing to
support the initiative for change, it is more likely to attain employees‟ commitment
(Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). The result of this study suggests that when SABIC
members perceived that their leader does not maintain the status quo they exhibit low
conflict relations, high cohesion and feel more affective commitment to their
organisation.
Additionally, it has been suggested that a key reason behind the failure of some
organisation‟s to change and innovate resides with their leaders. Sometimes leaders‟
204
lack the necessary skills, which hinders successful implementation. As a consequence,
leaders that are unable to anticipate, adapt to, and execute change successfully will fail
to increase their long-term achievability (Conner, 1992; Cummings and Worley, 2005;
Pfeffer, 2005). This failure will cause operational and financial difficulties to
organisations. On the other hand, changes in the status quo can cause concerns and/or
challenge the interests of powerful groups; therefore creating a crisis point, which can in
turn represent fertile ground for charismatic leadership (Eckardt, 2003; Marcus, 1995;
Mughan, Bean and McAllister, 2003; Levay, 2010). In such circumstances, a leader
who proposes a convincing and inspirational vision of how to resist change and
maintain the status quo can become the object of charismatic attributions. The leader's
influence on maintaining the status quo is thus exerted through charismatic processes.
Charismatic leadership is embodied in resistance to change and involves the defence of
the status quo; it begins when a comparatively powerful group perceives progress or
future change as a threat to their own group identity and interests (Levay, 2010).
Nevertheless, this could lead to destabilisation for SABIC. In this regard, this empirical
study, therefore contributes to the leadership field by emphasising the personal risk to
leaders as a crucial behaviour that promotes leader‟s effectiveness.
Thus far, there is no primary factor linking unconventional behaviours (UB) and
affective organisational commitment, which has modest relations with a team‟s
cohesion and a modest negative relationship that is conferred by group relations. Conger
and Kanungo‟s (1998) unconventional behaviour scale measures the leader‟s
encouragement to follow industrial and risky pathways and a route of action to achieve
organisational goals. It includes the use of non-traditional or counter-cultural means that
may surprise other organisational followers. One possible explanation of this result was
advanced by Hofstede (2001) who hypothesised that national culture‟s uncertainty
avoidance is linked to unconventional behaviour as described by charismatic leadership
models. Uncertainty avoidance is used to express how societies with low uncertainty
avoidance are tolerant to uncertainty, have a low requirement for formal regulations, are
risk takers and acknowledge normal organisational conflicts, whereas societies with
high uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for uncertainty, require formal
regulations, and take risks with less regularity. Half of this current study sample is taken
from SABIC‟s employees from countries high on uncertainty avoidance; such as the
Middle East and Pakistan, Latin America, Japan and South Africa, whereas the other
205
half are uncertainty avoidance tolerance, such as, China, Southeast Asia, India.
According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) countries including Central and Latin
Europe, Latin America, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Middle East and Pakistan have a
high level of uncertainty avoidance. It is generally the case that uncertainty tolerant
societies readily and quickly adjust to change and are willing to involve themselves in
trade with foreigners should the opportunity present itself. As a result their attitude and
social interactions can be classified as relaxed. According to Hofstede (2005) these
countries who are uncertainty tolerant are China and Southeast Asia, Scandinavia,
Anglo-Saxon countries and India.
According to Conger and Kanungo (1998), unconventional behaviour is one element of
the final stage of charismatic leadership (see chapter 3). It could be assumed that leaders
themselves do not need to complete all three stages (here, only unconventional
behaviour) effectively to promote cultural diversity effectively in first level supervision.
In contrast, leaders who are stuck in stage (1) have not yet demonstrated all behaviours
necessary for motivating their followers to commit to their organisation and are more
conversant with their group members.
The pattern of results suggests that the first and the second stages of charismatic
leadership (excepting unconventional behaviour) were essential to generating effective
leadership qualities. In contrast to this theoretical assumption, the third stage of
charismatic leadership was not important, meaning that the use of non-traditional very
unique behaviour (unconventional behaviour) was not as important as other forms of
charismatic leadership behaviour. An explanation for the non significant relationship
between unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness might be the context, as it is
a potential moderator between leadership and effectiveness. For instance, it was
suggested that charismatic leadership is more effective in times of crisis than in times of
comparative stability (Pillai and Meindl, 1998) whereas stable organisations scarcely
support the emergence of charismatic leadership (Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Thus, it
can be argued that SABIC, according to the present study, is not currently in a condition
of crisis, thus it may not require a measure of unconventional and non-traditional
behaviour in their leaders. Another explanation comes from Conger and Kanungo
(1998) asserted a link between vision, implementation of new objectives and employee
206
creativity. It is possible that at SABIC this is not important, even the positive link cited
by Rowold and Laukamp (2009) between unconventional behaviour and profit was not
found to be significant in the investigation of SABIC employees. An explanation of this
is that this study investigates this relationship at the team level (first-level), in which the
leader more concerned with daily tasks rather than creating a long-term vision of the
future (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009). Thus, this study can be seen as evidence that
unconventional behaviour is not important as leadership behaviour at the team level
(first-level) as the remaining five components of charismatic leadership described in the
Conger and Kanungo model.
Further investigations have been carried out so as to identify the moderating impact of
team identity on relations between each subscale of charismatic leadership behaviours
and leader‟s effectiveness. When multilevel analysis involved examination of the
moderating impact of team identity on the relationship between six charismatic
subscales and the three indicators leaders‟ effectiveness; the strongest interactions were
found between four of the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and team identity in
relation to these dimensions and leader effectiveness (group relations conflict, group
cohesion and effective commitment) sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic
vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR) and sensitivity to the environment
(SE). Whereas no interaction was found between two of the charismatic leadership
behaviours and group relations conflict, group cohesion and affective commitment,
namely, unconventional behaviour (UB), since the direct effect result also revealed no
significant relationship between unconventional behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness.
Although, from the direct effect result it was revealed that there is a significant
relationship between status quo and leader‟s effectiveness, although no interaction was
found between does not maintain status quo (SQ) and team identity.
In general, as the results reveal team identity has the effect of a moderator on the
relationship between charismatic leadership subscales and the leader‟s effectiveness. A
possible explanation of the non significant interactions of team identity and
unconventional behaviour (UB) does not maintain the status quo (SQ) in employee
attitude and behaviour may relate to Hofstede‟s national culture, uncertainty avoidance
(2001). This leads to the avoidance of any circumstances that might cause uncertainty
207
for SABIC people; even though SABIC employees feel strong affective ties towards
their group. As Hofstede (2001) illustrated this is in contrast with people exhibiting low
uncertainty avoidance. High uncertainty avoidance is characterised by a conservative
attitude, intolerance of diversity and unwillingness to welcome new experiences or
alternative lifestyles. Such an attitude threatens the organisation‟s potential for
innovation and creativity to a significant extent (Hermans and Dimaggio, 2007). Thus,
the current study how illustrates interactions between team identity and unconventional
behaviour (UB) and does not maintain that the status quo (SQ) failed to enhance the
relationship between these leadership behaviour (UB and SQ) and SABIC‟s employees‟
attitudes and behaviours. Accordingly, this study offer empirical evidence that four
components of Conger and Kanungo model namely, strategic vision and articulation,
sensitivity to the environment and sensitivity to member needs, are become more
stronger when combine with team identity to enhance leader‟s effectiveness.
This study also showed that leader prototypicality acts as a moderating influence on the
relationships between charismatic subscale leadership behaviours and the three
indicators of leader‟s effectiveness. The multilevel result revealed that leader
prototypicality is a moderator for the relationship between charismatic leadership
behaviour subscales and leader effectiveness. Although, leader prototypicality has a
positive effect on all three indicators of leader effectiveness, this variable did not
moderate the relationship between other charismatic behaviour subscales and leader
effectiveness. Specifically, leader prototypicality did not moderate the relationship
between unconventional behaviour (UB) and group relation conflict, group cohesion
and affective organisational commitment. This result supports what has been argued
previously regarding those cultures with high uncertainty avoidance characteristics
(Hofstede, 2001). Although leaders represent their group members, employees with
high uncertainty avoidance likely to seek to avoid ambiguous situations and require
official rules. For this reason, employees feel threatened by uncertain or unknown
situations and they also resist change and worry about future. This study presents
empirical evidence that leader prototypicality did not strengthen the relationship
between unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness.
Additionally, leader prototypicality was not found to moderate the relationship between
leaders‟ personal risk behaviour (PR) and affective organisational commitment. This
208
result in line with van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg‟s (2005) experimental study
which revealed that productivity levels, effectiveness ratings, and perceived leader
prototypicality and charisma were positively affected by leader self-sacrifice, especially
when leader prototypicality was low. Another study from a social-identity analysis of
leadership (Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003)
involved a series of four studies that generate consistent evidence for confirming this
result. The four studies revealed that effects of leader self-sacrificing behaviour on
leadership effectiveness were stronger with those leaders who were less prototypical
than for those leaders who were more prototypical. This study offers empirical evidence
that leader prototypicality did not strengthen the relationship between personal risk
behaviour and leader effectiveness.
6.4. Ethical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT
With regard to the relationship between ethical leadership and the leaders effectiveness
(as has been defined in this study as low group conflict, high level of cohesion and
affective organisational commitment), the following section will discuss these
relationships in details. In line with previous research, and as proposed, a relationship
between ethical leadership and perceived leader effectiveness was observed (Brown
Treviño and Harrison, 2005; Kalshoven and Den Hartog, 2009). Ethical leader
behaviour is expected to have direct positive effects on the attitudes and ethically
appropriate conduct of employees (Brow, Treviño and Harrison, 2005; Kanungo, 2001;
Treviño, Brown and Hartman, 2003), yet, the empirical knowledge of the effectiveness
of ethical leadership is still limited. Very few studies have investigated the relationship
between ethical leadership and leaders‟ effectiveness. For example, Brown et al. (2005)
and De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) found positive correlations between ethical
leadership and perceived leader effectiveness. Hence, the present study results
contribute to this research, by producing a clearer picture of leadership behaviour and its
effect on followers‟ attitudes and behaviours.
With regard to the relationship between ethical leadership and group conflict relations,
the results revealed that ethical leadership behaviours related negatively with group
relation conflict. Therefore, support was found for H2a which predicted the significant
relationship between ethical leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. The results
helped by starting to clarify how ethical leaders affect follower‟s behaviour and
209
attitudes. In other words, this results support the importance of ethical leaders with
regards to leader‟s effectiveness as noted by Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009). This
study also adds to conflict literature in terms of the author‟s knowledge; ethical
leadership behaviour and conflict have never been linked before. Therefore, this study
contributes to the literature and provides evidence factors that can be identified as
having a potential positive impact on employees‟ behaviour and attitudes in the work
place, particularly in terms of reducing relationship conflict between group members.
It was also found that ethical leadership was positively related to group cohesion; in the
study it was assumed that those employees who perceived their leaders exhibited ethical
leadership behaviours were more cohesive than those that did not. There is evidence in
the literature that supports a link between group cohesion and perceived fairness as an
essential form of ethical leadership behaviours. Researchers consider leaders‟
behaviours, such as fairness, as playing an important role in perceptions of ethical
leadership (Treviño et al., 2000, 2003, Kalshoven et al., 2011). Chansler et al. (2003), in
their study into self-managing work teams (SMWT), concluded that the fair treatment of
team members was one of the most important contributors to group cohesion.
All in all, this study proposed an extended role for ethical leadership in terms of
employees‟ affective organisational commitment. The result reveals that ethical
leadership was most significantly related to affective organisational commitment. As
this study supposed, employees perceive their leader demonstrates ethical leadership
behaviours and feel more committed to their organisation than those that do not
perceive that their leader demonstrates ethical leadership behaviours. These results can
be viewed in conjunction with the increase in studies that explore the relationship
between ethical leadership behaviours and employees‟ attitude, including affective
organisational commitment (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler and Lind, 1992; Kalshovern et
al., 2011).
According to the study results it could be argued that leaders‟ ethical behaviour is an
important factor to achieve group cohesion. Group cohesion has a positive effect on
employee well being and capability. As indicated by Tekleab et al. (2009), team
members who have a high level of cohesion were more satisfied and were more willing
to stay with the team than those who have a low level of team cohesion. Additionally, it
210
can be argued that the more leaders that have ethical behaviours the more employees
have low conflict relations. This is in line with previous literature (e.g. Cropanzano and
Baron, 1991; Crosby, 1976; Mark and Folger, 1984; Tatum and Eberlin, 2008), which
has also emphasised the importance of addressing issues of fairness and just treatment
of employees to reduce group conflict in an organisation. Which in turn, negatively
impact on team‟s effectiveness and job satisfaction and a potential increase in turnover
(Spector and Jex, 1998). Therefore, most research efforts have concentrated on
preventing relationship conflict in teams. Based on the results it can also be argued that
ethical leadership behaviour; such as fair treatment, honesty, integrity and justice
enhance the feeling of being treated as full members of SABIC, which in turn reinforces
the emotional bond amongst the group and/or the organisation. Feeling like full
members of the organisation is also likely to persuade employees to embrace behaviours
that are beneficial to the organisation‟s performance (De Cremer and van Knippenberg,
2002; Tepper and Taylore, 2003).
Ethical leadership behaviour provides advantages, such as unselfish behaviour creating an
encouraging work environment, enhanced coordination, and improved individual and group
productivity (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). In contrast, unethical behaviour reduces morale
leading to serious financial implications for organisations (Bennett and Robinson, 2000;
Dunlop and Lee, 2004). Gallagher and Tschudin (2010) added that “The most extreme
examples of unethical leadership have resulted in injustice, discrimination and even
genocide” (p. 225). For that reason, organisations are require to consider the issue of
ethical behaviour more critically if they wish to obtain better performance and loyalty
from their employees.
Given the established relationship between ethical leadership behaviour and leader
effectiveness, the present study also proceeded to investigate moderators of this
relationship. The investigation of situational factors was based on the assumption that
the relationship between ethical leadership and leader effectiveness will be enhanced
when interactions involve awareness of collective identity and there is leader
prototypicality. In support of predictions, the relationship between ethical leadership
and leader effectiveness was moderated by the degree of team identification and leader
prototypicality. Although there is substantial research in the area of organisational
justice (e.g. Konovsky, 2000; Walumbwa, 2009; De Coninck, 2010), ethical behaviours
such as fairness (justice) have received modest consideration as a characteristic of
211
leadership. To the author‟s knowledge, there is no empirical study examining the
moderator‟s role in terms of team identity and leader prototypicality on the relationship
between ethical leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness in the culturally diverse
workplaces. Theoretically, scholars have suggested that social identity plays a critical
role in terms of leader‟s fairness regarding employees (cf., van Knippenberg and Hogg,
2003). The present study provides empirical evidence of the team‟s identity and the
leader‟s prototypical role as moderators of ethical leadership behaviour and leader‟s
effectiveness in the culturally diverse workplace. Research into social identity and
justice (e.g. van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) suggests that leader‟s fairness (as one
component of ethical leadership) is an important determiner of leadership effectiveness
as a term defined by collective orientation. Furthermore, leader fairness may affect
follower identification and thus motivate followers‟ collective actions. They claim that
the role of leader‟s fairness in leadership effectiveness may be achieved by integrating
them with social identity analysis.
Furthermore, the current study results show that ethical leadership and leader
prototypicality interaction strengthen the relationship between ethical leadership and
leader effectiveness. Thus far, it has not been found that the prototypicality literature
links ethical leadership behaviour and prototypicality as a moderator in a multicultural
context. To the author‟s knowledge, empirical evidence concerning the link between
ethical leader and prototypicality is limited to the Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009)
study, and more research is needed. In this respect, it can be noted that Kalshoven and
Den Hartog‟s (2009) empirical work on ethical leadership revealed that leader
prototypicality is a mediator in the relationship between ethical leadership and leader
effectiveness. They argued that perceiving a leader as a prototype strongly increases
trust in those leaders, which in sequence increases perceptions of effectiveness.
Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009) concluded that ethical leaders are regarded as
idealised leader prototypes.
The current study findings highlight the importance of team identity and leader
prototypicality in strengthening the relationship between ethical leadership and a
leader‟s effectiveness. Thus; prototypical leaders in a culturally diverse work place are
more effective at reducing group relation conflict and promoting group cohesion and
affective commitment when they consistently treat all group members in an ethical
212
manner. This is consistent with the findings of social identity theory scholars that have
focused on leadership; they suggest that leaders that are seen to be more prototypical are
perceived to be more effective and receive stronger leadership support. They confirm
that this is due to the fact that prototypical leaders are more trusted by their followers
(Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).
Taken together, this study provides evidence taken from diverse workplaces and
populations that support the idea that perceived leadership behaviours (charismatic and
ethical leadership behaviours) influence the degree to which a leader can be effective in
reducing conflict in group relations and promote group cohesion and affective
commitment to the organisation. Thus, charismatic leadership, when effective, offers
vision and social framework, which the leader directs to ensure the vision is achieved.
Thus, it is also responsible for facilitating an environment of collective identity possible
(Drury and Reicher, 2005), meanwhile allowing individuals to create and function
within their own scenarios, instead of those prescribed by others.
It is crucial to recognise in this regard that the framework for a moderator reliant on
collective identification and leader prototypicality requires a motivated leadership
model, with leaders exhibiting behaviour that fosters follower self identification. For the
reason that those in a position to direct the group are those who are seen to be most
prototypical of the group position in a given context (which itself is defined as the
position which most clearly differentiates between the in-group and the out-group and
therefore varies as a function of which out-group is the subject of comparison (Turner
and Haslam, 2001). Thus, leaders need to represent and define social identity in context
(Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam, 2004; Haslam and Platow, 2001; Platow and van
Knippenberg, 2001), for example in multinational companies such as SABIC
To achieve a fuller comprehension of the social identity approach of an organisation and
its followers‟ behaviour it is useful to consult, Ashforth and Mael (1989), van Dick,
Ullrich and Tissington (2006), van Dick et al. (2004), Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail
(1994), Haslam (2001) van Knippenberg (2000) and Pratt (1998). These all reveal that a
more complete understanding of leadership processes is critical to achieve successful
evaluation of the importance to the leader prototypicality and the collective identity of
the follower. It is also considered to be crucial to be aware that leadership decisions are
213
more likely to be supported when presented in the context collective social identity. A
number of authors, including (Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; Hogg, 1996, 2001;
van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) have carefully evaluated this element of selecting a
leader who is prototypical.
It is reasonable, on the basis of the literature reviewed, and the research undertaken; to
assert that follower identification and leader prototypicality are very clear and decisive
factors in ensuring leadership behaviour is mirrored by follower behaviour. It is also
apparent that the natural conclusion here is; the leadership characteristic most likely to
be useful for insuring good group relations, flexibility and adherence to organisational
goals is leader prototypicality, particularly when combined with collective social
identification. This argument was supported by Reicher and Haslam and Hopkins
(2005) who perceive social identity theory leadership to share a symbiotic relationship.
In conclusion, this study has empirically examined two different approaches from
different fields of study; leadership theory and social identity theory, this has involved
examining whether the relations between independent and dependent variables become
stronger when examining team identity and leader prototypicality as moderators.
The study found that the two leadership styles (charismatic and ethical leadership) share
a significant relationship with leader effectiveness. The present study also examined
charismatic leadership behaviours‟ sub scales individually to identify the relationship
between these dimensions and leader effectiveness. To the author‟s knowledge, this is
one of the first studies to have analysed charismatic leadership behaviour on the
subscale level to identify relationships with leader effectiveness. The study revealed that
five of the six sub scales have a significant relationship with leader effectiveness.
Whereas, the sixth (unconventional behaviour) dimension has a modest relationship
with group relation conflict and group cohesion, therefore, no significant relationship
was found with employee affective commitment.
With regards to the moderator impact of team identity and leader prototypicality this
study offers empirical evidence that the relationship between charismatic and ethical
leadership becomes stronger when moderated by team identity and leader
prototypicality. Contrastingly, when examining these moderators with charismatic
214
leadership sub scales the results varied. The study illustrated that team identity
strengthens the relationship between four of the six dimensions of charismatic
leadership, whereas no interaction was found between the two charismatic leadership
behaviours and the three indicators of leader effectiveness; namely, unconventional
behaviour and does not maintain status quo. Additionally, leader prototypicality was
found to be a moderator between five of the charismatic sub scales and leader
effectiveness, whereas no interaction that enhanced leader effectiveness was found
between unconventional behaviour and leader prototypicality.
The most distinctive result from this study is the absence of unconventional behaviour
in terms of leader‟s effectiveness. This raises the possibility of that this leadership
behaviour was not influenced by followers‟ behaviour and attitude. The first
interpretation of the result examines this relationship at the team level (first-level),
wherein the leader was more concerned with daily tasks than with creating a long-term
vision of the future (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009). Thus, this study can be seen as
evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as important as leadership behaviour at
the team level (first-level) as is the case with the remaining five components of
charismatic leadership described in the Conger and Kanungo model. Thus, this study
can be seen as evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as critical as leadership
behaviour at the team level.
Secondly, it can be argued that the model emerging from the present study is similar to
the C-K model in many aspects; such as articulation of vision, personal risk, sensitivity
to member‟s needs and sensitivity to the environment. However, it deviates from the C-
K model, because unconventional behaviour does not have an effect on leader‟s
effectivness. Therefore, it is concluded that charismatic leadership exists in the SABIC
context with some variations of the C-K model, supporting the argument that
charismatic leadership is a variform phenomenon. The results therefore suggest that all
three stages of charismatic leadership (excepting unconventional behaviour) were
essential to generating effective leadership qualities. In contrast to this theoretical
assumption Conger and Kanungo‟s models of unconventional behaviour were not as
important as other forms of charismatic leadership behaviour. It seems that these
variations can be attributed to specific aspects of culture, such as it being conservative,
215
hierarchical, caring and less futuristic; as well as some aspects of the situation, i.e. a
stable organisational context. According to Conger and Kanungo (1998, p. 62), in a
conservative culture, unconventional behaviour would be considered deviant and not as
charismatic.
The third interpretation, in line with Singh and Krishnan (2002) is a study in Northern
India, the non-emergence of unconventional behaviour can be attributed to the value
congruence of leaders and followers. They argued that as a result of this value
congruence, followers may not see the actions of superiors as special or charismatic.
However, there is insufficient empirical evidence to accept or reject the notion of value
congruence among superiors and subordinates within Saudi organizations.
Another possible justification of this result is that some conditions such as a crisis
favour the emergence of charisma (Pillai and Meindl, 1991; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999),
while stable organisations such as SABIC barely support the emergence of charisma
(Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Further, House (1992) identifies opportunities for moral
involvement and difficulty specifying and measuring performance goals, lack of
sufficient situational cues to guide behaviour, and the need of exceptional efforts or
sacrifice, as favourable conditions for the emergence of charismatic leadership. Singh
and Krishnan (2002) identified charisma as potentially perceived negatively in a work
situation that is characterised by strong rules and standard operating procedures. A
context where a crisis or some other contextual factor(s) as mentioned above is absent,
and the achievement of goals through traditional means is possible and may mute the
need for unconventional means of achieving those goals. Organizations may not be in
crisis and thus they may not feel a necessity for unconventional and non-traditional
behaviour in their leaders. As a result, behaviour that diverges from traditional
behaviour may be perceived as a leader‟s attempt at motivating others, or to basically
motivate others without deliberate effort on the part of the leader. This perceived
behaviour that creates enthusiasm itself may place the leader at a distance from the
mainstream.
216
217
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
7. l. Introduction
This chapter commences with an overall summary of the research, it then considers the
research findings that accomplished the study‟s objectives. The contributions to the
field of knowledge, arising from the research findings will then be discussed. Finally,
the chapter identifies the study‟s limitations and suggests potential directions for future
research.
7.2. Research Summary
To summarise the conduct and application of this research this section reviews the steps
which were followed in the course of conducting it. The first of these included stetting
the research aim and position, selecting the research philosophy and data gathering
techniques to be adopted, designing the research framework and finally conducting the
exploratory and the empirical studies. Decisions regarding the general aims of the
research were taken into account on the basis of the gaps and critiques present in the
various strands of literature, as well as in view of the objectives and scope of the thesis.
While this section elaborates on the research objectives, section 7.4 of this chapter
discusses the main findings of the research with regards to these objectives.
7.3. The Research Aims and Positioning
The thesis began by giving an overview of the rationale and motivation behind the
research; discussing the scope and stating the problem, research aims, research
objectives, contributions of the study and the thesis structure. Chapter 2 provided
general background regarding the business culture in Saudi Arabia. In order to position
this research in relation to existing work, Chapter 3 highlighted the emphasis in the
literature on the potential of diverse teams to generate positive outcomes in terms of
innovation, improved decision making and creativity (e.g. Williams and O‟Reilly, 1998;
van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004; Mannix and Neale, 2005; Ottaviano and
Peri 2005 and 2006; Berliant and Fujita 2004). Conversely, it also discussed the dark
side to cultural diversity as it occurs in group situations. Diversity has been related to
218
negative affects and challenges to an organisation (Milliken, Bartel and Kurtzberg,
2003; van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004; Peltokorpi, 2006). Culture is a
complex, multidimensional construct that can be studied on several levels: international,
national, regional, business and organisational (Wen-Cheng, Chien-Hung and Ying-
Chien, 2011). Current literature was found to have focused primarily on the outcomes of
cultural diversity at the multinational group level in terms of process variables (conflict,
cohesion, organisational commitment).
Consequently, the need for leaders who have the ability to motivate, communicate and
manage cultural variances is a challenge that is increasing in the case of multinational
companies (Dorfman, et al., 2004). Although numerous theoretical models recognise the
effect that culture may have on leadership behaviours, most of these focus at the
organisational and interpersonal levels (Youkl, 2002). Recently there has been a
growing interest in the stream of leadership theory known as “charismatic” (Conger and
Kanungo, 1987), “transformational” (Bass, 1985), “visionary” (Bennis and Nanus,
1985). With very little differences between them (Javidan and Waldman, 2003; Yulk,
2002), these theories concentrate on leadership behaviours that produce an emotional
effect on their followers and can convert emotional attachment to the leaders‟ values
and to the collective (Javidan and Waldman, 2003). These theories, are based on the
concept of charisma and are commonly identified as “charismatic leadership” styles
(Conger and Kanungo, 1998); allowing the creation of a relationship between the
individual and the collective, as well as between the leader and their followers. This
happens through the use of shared values, which are distinct features of a group and
effect the selection from amongst existing modes, means and actions (Hofstede, 2001).
This relationship makes charismatic leadership styles the most appropriate to study in
an association between leadership behaviours and national culture.
Therefore, as discussed in chapter three, with the aim of seeking an effective leadership
style in a culturally diverse workplace, this study built on Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998)
model. This model has six sub dimensions namely: strategic vision and articulation,
sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to member‟s needs, personal risk, and
unconventional behaviours. They claimed that their model, was debatably the most
comprehensive integrative method for exploring leadership behaviours (Conger and
Kanungo, 1998 Yokl, 2002).
219
Combined with charismatic behaviours, in salient groups, effective leaders conduct
these behaviours within ethical norms that exhibit honesty, trustworthiness, fairness,
justice treatment and care as common group members (Hogg el al. 2005). Tatum and
Eberlin (2008) argued that addressing issues of fairness and the just treatment of people
is an essential aspect of business strategy and decision making development. In a
condition of cultural diversity, there is an absolute and imperative need for ethical
leadership. Therefore, leaders are in a position to account for the possibilities that occur
when working with employees with diverse values, beliefs and expectations.
Consequently, it is vital that leaders of diverse teams are cognisant of their own biases,
prejudices and attitudes toward those who are unlike them (Chrobot-Mason and
Ruderman, 2004). Thus, failure to exhibit these ethics may lead to conflict and negative
outcomes (Tatum and Eberlin, 2008).
Additionally, a distinctive feature of this study is the use of Social Identity Theory
(SIT); since, it is often employed as a basis for understanding the positive and negative
outcomes that result when members of dissimilar identity groups interact. Generally,
these theories propose that people assess the social groups to which they belong as
positive and are enthused to sustain such assessments with the intention of preserving a
favourable self-image (Mason, et al., 2007). Thus, this study adopts social identity to
develop our comprehension of diversity dynamics and follower identity theory,
specifically, leader prototypicality and team identification. By applying such behaviour,
leaders convert their followers‟ beliefs and values, and inspire them to position the
organisation goals before their individual-interest. Consequently, as a result of this
behavioural transformation, leaders can generate an effective and valuable workplace
for employees (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002).
However, leadership literature suggests that the responsibility of the leader is
specifically to take a challenging role, given that leader is also a member of one of the
social identity groups. Haslam (2001) suggests that a specific team member will be
perceived as prototypical of this team to the extent that the individual is similar to
members of the team to which he/she belongs and distinct from members of other
teams. The prototypical leader is often capable of influencing followers. This kind of
220
leader is socially attractive to the other team members who are expected to agree and
conform to their recommendations can seek their approval. Thus, team members tend to
support more prototypical leaders and more prototypical leaders are likely to be more
effective (Haslam, 2001).
The previous argument raised the importance of considering leadership behaviour in
leading a culturally diverse work place, and in identifying how employee team identity
is linked to the group. The perception of the team‟s leader as a team member and
representative is also essential when considering diversity in a team.
This study seeks to expand present knowledge about leaders‟ effectiveness and
perceived leader behaviour in organisational settings. Although the connection between
leadership and ethicality has been established in the literature, little empirical work has
been done. No previous study has used the Conger and Kanungo scale (C-K) as a
measurement instrument to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and
work-related outcomes in culturally diverse workplace such as relation conflict, group
cohesion and organisational commitment. In addition, empirical studies regarding
ethical leadership and follower perceptions are not well covered. Although the literature
highlighted the effect of team identity and leader prototypicality on leadership
effectiveness, minimal empirical study has examined the moderating impact of these
variables.
This study addressed the gap in the literature by examining the relationship between
leadership behaviours and managing the culturally diverse workplace effectively; by
reducing group relation conflict, increasing group cohesion and attaining a high level of
affective commitment to the organisation, performing the moderator‟s role of social
identity (team identity and leader prototypicality) in these relationships. In moving from
the conceptual to the empirical, the research aims were translated in the research
framework into two main phases: First, an exploratory phase to achieve an interpretive
understanding of the research constructs and thus develop a research hypothesis and
second a model testing phase, to empirically assess the hypothetical research model.
221
7.4. Selecting the Research Philosophy and Data Gathering Technique
The literature review in chapter 3 helped to identify the methodological and technical
limitations in the research area under investigation. Thus, Chapter 4 focuses on the
method of testing the study framework. The chapter justifies the appropriateness of the
positivist philosophy, to assist in producing data relating to theoretical frameworks and
achieving research objectives, by clarifying relationships amongst the study variables.
The research undertaken to understand the issue resulted in the decision to employ a
quantitative approach.
The researcher employed a pilot study before the main study was conducted. The main
study involved conducting a questionnaire based paper that was distributed to 500
employees and 100 team leaders through (SABIC) in different regions in KSA; 441
questionnaires were returned with 73.5% response rate. The data collected were
analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). Descriptive statistics were used to
ensure that the data was normally distributed and to provide averages and standard
deviations for each of the variables in the study. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
were conducting to ensure the construct validity of the instrument as well as to identify
groups or clusters of variables (Field, 2009). Finally the study‟s instruments, validity
and reliability were tested. Evidence was found that the study‟s instruments were
reliable via the pilot; mean study-employees and leaders- questionnaires were
consistently rated above 0.80 and demonstrated divergent validity.
In Chapter 5 the data that were collected was analysed using the SPSS package (version
18). The study was concerned with group level variables since it was designed to
examine employees‟ impressions of their leaders. Consequently, multilevel modelling
(MLM) techniques were used to test the hypotheses. The survey findings related to all
parts of the survey instrument and were analysed and possible indications from the
outcomes were highlighted.
Chapter 6 offered a comprehensive discussion of the analysis of results and findings
from the quantitative study data, and this was presented in chapters 4 and 5.
Furthermore, it offered a quantitative result from a careful analysis of relevant literature.
222
The overall findings, the contributions and the implications for practice of this study
and the study limitations and future research will be the subject of this chapter.
7.5. From Research Objectives to Research Findings
This research set out five objectives, as described in chapter one. For the purpose of this
conclusion the first three objectives were combined as one objective. These objectives
were accomplished as follows:
Objectives 1, 2 and 3: Analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours
(charismatic and ethical) and the level of relation conflict, team cohesion
and the level of employees’ affective commitment to the organisation in
culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries
Corporation (SABIC).
The findings revealed that teams that perceive their leaders to exhibit
charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour have more cohesion, felt more
commitment to the organisation and had less internal conflict than those who do
not perceive their leaders to exhibit charismatic and ethical leadership
behaviours.
Closer analysis of the sub dimensions of charismatic leadership exposed a
significant positive relationship between five of the six charismatic leadership
subscales with no significant variation between unconventional behaviours (UB)
and group relationship conflicts, group cohesion and affective organisational
commitment.
Objective 4: Examine the moderating impact of social identity (Team identity) on the
relationship between leadership behaviours and leading the diverse
workplace effectively (defined as low relation conflict, high team
cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).
The study found that people who identify strongly with the group react more strongly to
charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour and therefore strengthen leader
223
effectiveness.
Team identity had the effect of moderating the relationship on four of the six
charismatic leadership subscales, whereas there were no significant interactions
regarding team identity related to (unconventional behaviour (UB) and not maintaining
the status quo (SQ) in employees‟ attitudes and behaviour.
Objective 5: Examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality)
on the relationship between leadership behaviours and leading the diverse
workplace effectively (defined as low relation conflict, high team cohesion and
high affective commitment to the organisation).
The current study findings highlight the importance of leader prototypicality in
strengthening the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership behaviours
and a leader‟s effectiveness.
Although, leader prototypicality has a positive effect on all three indicators of a leader‟s
effectiveness, this variable did not moderate the relationship between all of the
charismatic behaviour subscales and leader effectiveness. Specifically, the result
revealed that leader prototypicality has the effect of moderation on the relationship
between four of six charismatic leadership subscales. Contrary to this, leader
prototypicality did not moderate the relationship between unconventional behaviour
(UB) and leader‟s effectiveness. Additionally, leader prototypicality was not found to
moderate the relationship between leaders‟ personal risk behaviour (PR) and affective
organisational commitment.
7.6. Research Contributions to Knowledge
The current study focuses on developing existing knowledge regarding perceived
leadership behaviour in multicultural environment. This study is distinct from previous
studies due to its extensiveness. By exploring two styles of leadership (charismatic and
ethical leadership) it investigates the effect of social identity theory on leadership
effectiveness. It particularly emphasises the importance of identifing with team
members and puts forward the leader themselves as interactive variables for leadership
224
effectiveness.
It is expected that this study will contribute to the literature by providing useful
information to address the gaps in those issues relating to charismatic and ethical
leadership behaviours and social identity theory in multinational companies; by
focusing on the information available in depth.
This research contributes to the understanding of employee behaviour and attitude
within the framework of charismatic leadership theory. Not only are these findings an
important addition to the literature, but they also contribute to the field of organisational
psychology by adding more evidence to suggest that leadership is associated with
improving employee relationships and commitment to an organisation. With respect to
the relationship between internal group conflict and charismatic leadership behaviours,
to the author‟s knowledge, no targeted empirical study has been conducted to date. The
results from this study fill the gap left by previous research as they clearly reveal a
correlation between perceived leadership behaviour and conflict in group relations.
Positive perceptions of leadership behaviours were correlated with low levels of group
conflict in this connect, as group conflict disturbs normal working practice and hence
productivity (Curşeu, 2011). This finding has significance in that it provides empirical
evidence for the first time that charismatic leadership may be an effective technique to
use in workplaces which report conflict between teams. The findings from this study
provide unique data that gives an insight into the effect of charismatic leadership, and
specifically this describes the beneficial effect of these SABIC leaders who exhibit high
levels of these qualities.
One of the most distinctive contributions of the current study was the finding of no
significant relation between the subscale of charismatic leadership in terms of
unconventional behaviour and leader‟ effectiveness. Thus, the study demonstrates that
charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungu exclusive of unconventional behaviour) is
related to the leader‟ effectiveness indicator (low relation conflict, high group cohesion
and high affective commitment). According to Conger and Kanungo, unconventional
behaviour is one aspect of the last stage of charismatic leadership. It may be assumed
225
that only leaders who have completed all three phases successfully with the exclusion of
the characteristic of stage three (unconventional behaviour) generate high leader‟
effectiveness. In contrast, leaders trapped in stage 1 or 2 have not yet confirmed the
charismatic leadership behaviours that are needed tp interest their followers to
contribute beyond expectations. Therefore this study offers evidence that
unconventional behaviour is not deemed to be an important type of leader behaviour,
specifically regarding first-level managers. As Rowold and Laukamp (2009) have
reported, it is top managers that are generally charged with the task of developing a
vision for the long-term, whereas first-level supervisors are responsible primarily for
ensuring the smooth running of daily tasks and routines.
The research has succeeded in examining a model that enriches current research by
offering specification, justification and empirical validation of a set of relationships
describing important leadership behaviours (ethical behaviours) that tend to be
associated with some leadership styles; such as transformational, transactional and
authentic leadership. Meanwhile, both the theory and research covered here indicate that
ethical leadership and charismatic leadership are distinct constructs (Brown et al., 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, De Hoogh, 2011a).
Accordingly, this research stresses the importance of examining the terms charismatic
and ethical leadership separately. It provides empirical evidence of the significant role
played by ethical leadership as a set of behaviours or a behavioural style in itself, rather
than focusing only on the ethical aspects of other leadership styles. The empirical
results therefore show ethical leadership has a similarly strong effect on employee
outputs as charismatic leadership. These results point to a far greater role for the
conceptualisation of ethical leadership in leadership studies than has been
acknowledged to date. It is possible that future studies could usefully examine the
interactivity between charismatic leadership and ethical leadership, for example the
moderating effect of ethics on charismatic leadership.
Most importantly, this research integrates leadership behaviour and social identity to
influence the key relationships linked to leader effectiveness. To the author‟s
knowledge, the results of this study are the first to show empirically verified evidence
that the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical) and
226
effectiveness are moderated by leader prototypicality and team identity. As a
consequence this research, offers empirically evidence of the effects of social identity
on team behaviour in culturally diverse workplaces. Additionally, the contribution of
this study is to investigate in depth the integration of social identity and charismatic
leadership components. The findings then offer evidence of the importance of social
identity in strengthening the relationships between charismatic leadership and leader‟s
effectiveness. With the exception of unconventional behaviour all the study indicators
are linked; personal risk with affective organisational commitment, and does not
maintain the status quo with team identity and affective organisational commitment and
group cohesion. Additionally, the present study provides empirical evidence of the
team‟s identity and the leader‟s prototypicality role as moderating ethical leadership
behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness in culturally diverse workplaces.
Finally, all the research constructs used in this study were drawn from literature, and
were designed and validated for participants in American or European and East Asian
countries. This research contributed by validating these constructs and their associated
items and the scale for Saudi participants, where the validity and reliability of the
constructs and measurement scales were supported.
In sum, the present study‟s contributions are to expanding the literature and empirically
testing the relationship between charismatic leadership using the C-K scale, the ethical
leadership scale and some of these variables suggested above. Specifically, this study
has succeeded in confirming the relationship between Conger and Kanungo‟s model,
ethical leadership scale and leader effectiveness (low internal conflict, high cohesion
and high affective commitment to the organisation) and the moderating impact of leader
prototypicality and team identification in private organisations in a culturally diverse
context in Saudi Arabia.
7.7. Implications for Practice
The current move towards organisations adopting a more globalised perspective as a
consequence of foreign competition, the influence of foreign markets, and increases in
multi-nationals and international joint ventures, has led to a focus on workers‟ mobility.
It is frequently the case that workers imagine working for organisations abroad to be an
227
attractive option. Accordingly, managers in multi-cultural contexts are being faced with
a series of unique challenges regarding organisational change and cultural diversity.
A major implication of the findings is that charismatic and ethical leadership styles
seem to be adequate to reduce group relationship conflict and increase group cohesion
and affective commitment in the cultural diverse work place. The findings of this study
may have significant implications for transforming existing theory on charismatic
leadership effectiveness into practice. Specifically, the findings may have meaningful
implications for leadership training and development, reinforcing the need for
leadership training to enhance leader effectiveness in leading diverse teams. This
leadership training programme would ideally aim to teach leaders to articulate the
organisation‟s collective goals, communicate high level expectations and demonstrate
confidence in followers‟ capacity to meet expectations. Additionally, the language of
leaders is most effective when it exhibits a desire and willingness to alter the status quo,
presume personal risk and addresses the needs of the followers; therefore, once the
pattern of leadership is more apparent, organisations can improve the charismatic effect
by training leaders that display charismatic behaviour as recognised in chapter 3 of this
study. According to Rowold and Laukamp (2009) the CK scale refers solely to leaders‟
visible behaviours. The CK scale, when used for the purpose of training can be
employed to readily assess, evaluate, and improve the behaviour observed. This differs
from alternative leadership assessment tools, which often incorporate a measurement of
the effect on followers (i.e. the MLQ). In practical terms this gives the CK scale items
the potential to be used directly in exercises; including in role play, video feedback, etc.
(Laukamp, 2009).
Evidence from this study suggests that ethical leaders contribute positively to follower‟s
behaviour and attitudes. Therefore, it is fundamental to encourage organisations to
promote this type of behaviour in their leaders. It may also be suggested that a
leadership training program should concentrate on leaders‟ ethical conduct by adopting
certain core ethical values, with the goal that they become ethical in the manner with
which they address diverse teams within multicultural organisations. This may be very
effective, especially in the long-term. In this respect, leaders are seen as having the
potential to encourage their followers to perform ethical behaviours and reduce
unethical behaviour during interactions with group members that are dissimilar to them.
228
As the current study reveals the importance of the ethical leader lies in increasing
affective commitment to the organisation. This finding has implications for
multicultural organisations such as SABIC. It seems that to increase ethical behaviour in
organisations in general and in multicultural organisations specifically, a compulsory,
solid and controlled policy that underlines destructive outcomes is valuable. According
to the Ethics Resource Centre (2007) a number of organisations have implemented
behavioural policies that strengthen appropriate and inappropriate conducts. However,
scholars in this field have argued that the existence of this policy does not increase
ethical behaviour unless it is made salient through enforcement (see Kish-Gephart,
Harrison, and Treviño, 2010). Thus, the present study emphasises the importance of
running training programmes that aim to clarify these kinds of policies to organisation‟s
employees and assess team members to help them become more aware of their role
within the context of their own diverse team. This training programme enables the
group to experience a creative flow of ideas that can affect the culture of how the
organisation carries out its daily business from an ethical perspective. It is through such
programmes that an organisation might successfully achieve the dual objectives of
building greater leadership capacity and improving its ethical performance.
Moreover, the results from the moderating impact on the two leadership styles confirm
the importance of leader prototypicality on enhancing effectiveness. Accordingly, this
study suggests that organisations may not only increase the chances of leader‟s
effectiveness in reduce group relation conflict, but also increase the level of group
cohesion and the level of affective commitment by selecting charismatic and ethical
leader leaders who are representative of organisational identity, but also by leadership
development programs that enhance leaders‟ inspirational motivation skills and their
ability to convey an image of team prototypicality. Additionally, regarding the selection
of team members, human resource managers or the team leaders should consider the
similarities between leaders and their followers when selecting team members.
7.8. Limitations
Even though it is considered that this study was able to formulate information to
provide a positive contribution to the leadership field, it was subject to limitations that
should be acknowledged and that in turn could also suggest areas of further research.
229
There may be unexplained variables such as individual differences that are unaccounted
for in this study, affecting the relationships. For example, it could be that the strength of
the relationship between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness could also
depend on an individual personality and such differences could be impacting the
relationships examined in this research.
In addition, in the present study ethical leadership was conceptualised and
operationalised as a one-dimensional model, whereas some recent studies suggest the
value of examining several different ethical dimensions of leadership (e.g., De Hoogh
and Den Hartog, 2008, Kalshoven, et al., 2011b). These include personal honesty and
justice when making decisions and determinations; the use of a punitive and reward
based systems, to manage adherence to ethical requirements; and, giving employees a
voice and the opportunity to influence decisions relevant to their work. These factors are
related but can provide variations and thus differently influence outcomes. We may
extend this finding, by identifying the effect of these factors on employees‟ behaviour
and attitude in culturally diverse work places. This is relevant because ethical leadership
has been shown to positively affect the attitudes and (ethical) conduct of employees;
this impacts on business units and also on organisational performance (Brown, Treviño
and Harrison, 2005; Kanungo, 2001; Treviño, Brown and Hartman, 2003; Kalshoven, et
al., 2011a).
Furthermore, research methodologies other than use of a questionnaire could have been
used to measure leader behaviour. This point of view is supported by Yukl (2010) who
stated that, quantitative data used in isolation is insufficient for addressing the field of
leadership. Leadership describes the role of the leader, the follower, and the
complication of the environment (Avolio, et al., 2005). Additional to the complication
of leadership, quantitative results are inadequate by themselves. Thus, a qualitative
research methodology, such as focus group, in-depth interviews and document analysis
may also reveal important processes that contribute to the leadership‟s relationship
between leaders and followers.
Additionally, SABIC is an organisation with all male employees. It was , therefore,
230
impossible to interview the team leaders or follower directly as women are not allowed
to enter the offices according to the Saudi system, thus sexual segregation prevented the
researcher from using direct interview methods in the study, therefore, other alternatives
methods have been used. As a consequence of this the researcher does not know if there
are different attributions would be generated if the leaders were female. It is possible
that charismatic and ethical behaviours exhibited by a female leader may not have the
same positive effects since women are more expected to conform to different roles than
men (Rosener, 1995; Rosener, 2011).
7.9. Future Studies
The current study has attempted to advance leadership theory by testing a synthesised
model of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership and social identity theory within a
culturally diversity context. Although the findings from this study addressed several
gaps in the literature, many questions remain unanswered regarding our understanding
of leadership behaviours. The following section will provide several recommendations
for future research on charismatic and ethical leadership and social identity in
organisations.
This study focuses on deep-level diversity (e.g. personality, values, attitudes and
beliefs) rather than other types of diversity; future research could benefit from studying
additional diversity characteristics, such as age and tenure (surface-level). In the future,
researchers may also want to consider examining general diversity in terms of
leadership behaviour, as well as in view of other moderators, such as follower self-
efficacy, self-esteem and team cooperation.
Additional research should be conducted to broaden an understanding of the dependent
variables that are used to assess leader effectiveness. It would be valuable to extend the
current analysis to other diverse team attitudes and behaviours; beyond relation conflict,
cohesion and affective commitment, so as to assess and develop leader effectiveness.
Thus, efforts should be made to examine effectiveness in specific areas such as affective
variables (e.g. turnover intonation, absenteeism, job satisfaction commitment to the
leader and mission). Alternatively, future research into charismatic leadership in
particular might be valuable to pursue in view of the likelihood that different features of
231
leader behaviour (e.g. nonverbal behaviour) interact in affecting leadership
effectiveness.
The current study focuses on the positive side of charismatic leadership. Although
charismatic leadership as such is often seen as value-free. Further research considers the
darker side of charismatic leadership behaviour or personalised charismatic leadership
which builds on personally dominant, authoritarian behaviour and serves the leader‟s
self-interest and is oppressive of others. This category of leadership behaviour has been
connected with definitely harmful, morally wrong and punitive (O‟Connor et al., 1995;
Gardner and Avolio, 1998).
The researcher strongly recommends that future research incorporates interviewing.
This would perhaps lead to a more complete analysis of the problems which followers
experience with their leaders and could therefore be an effective means of obtaining
information from followers.
SABIC was used as the sample in this empirical study. Further research using other
samples from different nations, will provide information to support or contradict the
results of this study.
7.10. Final Thoughts
This is an important area of study, which has been filled with rich discussion. More
empirical testing is necessary to continue to advance the field of charismatic and ethical
leadership, although we have identified a strong relationship between leader‟s
effectiveness and leadership behaviour. This study makes a clarion call that more
organisations need to identify more charismatic and ethical leaders and seek to position
them in diverse work place. This study attempted to fill the gap in the research on the
role of charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour in leading multinational companies
effectively, by reducing relation conflict, heightening team cohesion and affective
commitment. The study examined the role of social identity as a moderator to
strengthen effectiveness. It is hoped that not only will this study contribute to the
scholarly field of research, but also to the application of identifying and developing
leaders behaviour by taking into account the role of social identity theory in this kind of
232
diversity (deep-level diversity) and motivate more research into charismatic and ethical
leadership behaviour.
233
REFERENCES
Aaronson S. A. and Abouharb, M. R. (2011). Unexpected Bedfellows: The GATT, the
WTO and Some Democratic Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 379–
408.
Abbas, A. J. (2008). Business and Management Environment in Saudi Arabia:
Challenges and Opportunities for Multinational Corporations for multinational
corporations. New York: Routledge.
Abbas, A. J. and Swiercs, P. M. (1986). The relationship between managerial decision
styles and work satisfaction in Saudi Arabia. In E. Kaynack (Ed.), International
Business in the Middle East. (pp.137-149). New York: Walter de- Gruyter.
Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behaviour, (4th
ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Adler, N. and Gunderson, A. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizational
Behaviour (5th ed.). Mason: Thomson Higher Education.
Ahmad, S. Z. (2011). Evidence of the characteristics of women entrepreneurs in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3 (2), 123 – 143.
Akroyd, D., Jackowski, M. B. and Legg, J. S. (2007). Factors affecting radiographers‟
organizational commitment. Radiol Technol, 78, 467-475.
Akroyd D, L. J., Jackowski, M. B., and Adams, R.D. (2009). The impact of selected
organizational variables and managerial leadership on radiation therapists‟
organizational commitment. Radiography, 15: 113–120.
Albrecht, S. and Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public sector senior management.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76-92.
Albawardy, F. A. (2010). Comparative study between the strategic value of learning
multinational private and public sectors organisations in Saudi Arabia.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Business school, University of Portsmouth.
Alesina, A. and Ferrara, E. L. (2000). Participation in Heterogeneous Communities.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 847–904.
Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
63, 1-18.
234
Allen, R., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K and White, C.S. (2004). Diversity Practices:
Learning Responses for Modern Organisation. Development and learning in
organisations, 18 (6), 13-15.
Al Morished, M., (2004). Corporate Finance Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
(SABIC) At the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED). Project Finance
Conference October 5-6, 2004 Ritz Carlton Hotel Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Alnimir, S.M. (1981). Present and Future Bureaucrats in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. USA: Florida State University.
Alon, I., Child, J.., Li, S. and McIntyre, J. R. (2011). Globalization of Chinese Firms:
Theoretical Universalism or Particularism. Management and Organization
Review, 7(2), 191-200.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in
group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams.
Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 74: 33-52.
Altinay, L., Wang, C.L. (2009). Facilitating and maintaining research access into ethnic
minority firms. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12 (4),
367-390.
Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity. Human
Relations, 54(7), 863-886.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional
conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox of top management
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Amaram, D. I. (2007). Cultural Diversity: Implications for Workplace Management.
Journal of Diversity Management - Fourth Quarter, 2, (4), 1-6.
Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L. and Benn, S. (2010). Leadership Styles and CRC
Practice: An Examination of Sensemaking, Institutional Drivers and CSR
Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 189–213.
Anderson, V. (2004). Research methods in Human Resource management. London:
CIPD.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. K., Blakely, G. L. and Bucklew, N. S. (2008). Group
cohesion as an enhancement to the justice - affective commitment relationship.
Group & Organization Management, 33, 736–755.
Antonakis, J. and House, R. J. (2002). An analysis of the full-range leadership theory:
The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.) Transformational and
235
Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead (pp.3-33). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science.
Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C.A., Donovan, J. A., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini,
E. and Rossomme, J.L. (2004). Methods for studying leadership. In: Antonakis,
J., Cianciolo, A.T., Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), the Nature of Leadership (PP. 249-
278). London: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Arab-Management-Style. Retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.worldbusiness
culture.com/Arab-Management-Style.html.
Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., Mkamwa, T.
(2010). The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance:
Beyond high performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 49, 6,
977-998.
Aronson, e. (2001) integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives, Canadian.
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18 (4), 244-256.
Ashforth, B. E. and Male, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Atiyyah, H. S. (1996). Expatriate Acculturation in Arab Gulf countries. Journal of
Management Development, 15(5), 37- 47.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B., Bass, B. and Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional using Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 44-462.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 16 315-338.
Avolio, B., Bass, B. and Jung, D. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire:
technical report. Pal Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J. and Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader
motivation: altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169-91.
Ayoko, O., Callan, V. J., Härtel, C.E. J. (2008). The Influence of Team Emotional
Intelligence Climate on Conflict and Team Members' Reactions to Conflict. Small
Group Research, 39 (2) 121-149.
236
Ayoko, O. and Härtel, C. (2006). Cultural diversity and leadership: A conceptual model
of leader intervention in conflict events in culturally heterogeneous workgroups.
Cross Cultural Management, 13 (4), 345- 360.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baccarani, C. (2008). What does ethical behaviour mean in management activities?
The TQM Journal, 20 (2), 154-165.
Balfour, D. L. and Wechsler, B. (1990). Organizational commitment: A
reconceptualization and empirical test of public-private difference. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 10, 23-40.
Balkhi, Z..T. and Foul, A. (2009). Improving Inventory Control for SABIC Products.
Recent advances in applied mathematics and computational and information
sciences. 1, 146-159.
Bamberg, R., Akroyd, D. (2008). Factor that impact clinical laboratory scientists‟
commitment to their work organisation. Journal of the American Society for
Clinical Laboratory Science, 21(3), 167-192.
Baron, R. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employees
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.
Baruch, Y. and Hall, D. T. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers
in other sectors. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64, 241-262.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.
Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Individual, military and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B., (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision. Organisational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership. The
Psychologist Manager Journal, (1), 3, 5-21.
Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and
transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development.
In R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (vol. 4, pp. 231-272). Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
237
transformational leadership, corporate reorganization and transformation in
human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd
ed.).
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit
Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, (2), 207–218.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and
Innovation.Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 169–75.
Beauchamp, T. L. and Bowie, N. E. (2001). Ethical theory and business (6th
ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Becker, P. E. (1998). Making inclusive communities: Congregations and the “problem”
of race. Social Problems, 45, 451-472.
Bennis, W. and Namus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper & Row.
Bennett, R. J. and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 349-360.
Berliant, M and M. Fujita (2004). Knowledge Creation as a Square Dance in the Hilbert
Cube (Washington University, Department of Economics:
http://economics.wustl.edu/berliantfujitaworkingpaper2.pdf).
Bjerke, B., and Al-Meer, A. (1993). Culture‟s consequences: management in Saudi
Arabia. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 14(2), 30-35.
Blader, S. and Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and expanding the group engagement model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 445–464.
Blasé, J. and Kirby, P. C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers. Newbury Park, CA:
Corwin.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., and Tight, M. (2006). How to research (3rd
ed.). England:
Open University Press.
Bliese, P.D., Halverson, R. R., and Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel
methods in leadership: the articles, the model, and the data set. Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 3-14
Bliese, P. D., and Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative:
the Perils of Treating Grouped Data as Though They Were Independent.
238
Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400-17.
Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., and DiStefano, A. C. (2003). Transformational leadership: an
examination of cross-national differences and similarities. Leadership
Organisational Development, 24(1), 5–15.
Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers‟
organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational
citizenship behaviour in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A. and Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:
Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behaviour on employee cynicism
about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 733−753.
Boone, C. and Hendriks, W. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm
performance: moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity.
Management Science, 55, 165–80.
Bowie, N.E. (1982). Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y. and Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value
congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An
empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management,
20,195–206.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, B. (1999). The context and
content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.),
Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Science.
Brehmer, Berndt (1976). Social judgement theory and the analysis of interpersonal
conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83 (6), 985-1003.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., and Kern, M. C. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard
Business Review, 84(11), 85–91.
Brewer, M.B. (1995). Managing Diversity: the Role of Social Identities. In S.E.
Jackson and M. Ruderman (Eds.), diversity in work teams: Research paradigms
for a changing workplace, (pp. 47-68). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Brislin, Richard (1993), Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behaviour, Orlando, FL:
Jarcourt Brace Jovanivich.
Brodbeck, G. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S. et al. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership
239
prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 7, 1-29.
Brown, B. and Harris, C. (1993). The Implications of Work Force Diversification in the
U.S. Forest Service. Administration & Society, 25 (1), 85-113.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K. and Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.
Brown, M. E. Treviño, L. K. (2006c). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. The Leadership Quarterly. 17, 595–616.
Brown, M. E. Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Charismatic leadership and workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954−962.
Brown, M. E. and Treviño, L. K. (2006a). Socialized Charismatic Leadership, Values
Congruence, and Deviance in Work Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(4), 954–962.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and
future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.
Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring the Origins of Ethical Company/Brand Perceptions - A
Consumer Perspective of Corporate Ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63,
255–262.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd
ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Bryman, A. (2011). Mission accomplished?: Research methods in the first five years of
Leadership. Leadership, 7(1) 73–83.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). The process of quantitative research Business research
methods (2nd
ed.). Oxford: University press.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2011). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Budman, S. H., Solds, S., Demby, A., Davis, M., and Merry, J. (1993). What is
cohesiveness? An empirical examination. Small Group Research, 24, 199-216.
Budhwar, P. S. (2001). HRM in India. In P. S. Budhwar and Y. A. Debrah (Eds.), HRM
in developing countries, (pp. 75–90). London: Routledge.
240
Burch St, G. J. (2006). The “creative-schizotype”: Help or hindrance to team-level
innovation?. University of Aucklandolume Business Review, 8 (1), 43–51.
Burns, J., M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Butler, S. (1997). Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility: Good for the bottom
line. Vital speeches of the day, 63(18), 559-561.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R., and Allen, J. (1995). Further assessment of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Chaar, I. (2010). How to address Saudi Arabia‟s leadership shortage. Retrieved on July
5, 2010 from http://www.kenexa.com.
Calabrese, R.L. and Roberts, B. (2002). Character, school leadership, and the brain:
learning how to integrate knowledge with behavioural change. International
Journal of Educational Management, 16 (5), 229-38.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (2003). An introduction to positive
organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Campion, M. A., Medsker G. J. and Higgs, C. A. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work
groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Canen, A. G. and Canen, A. (2002). Innovation Management Education for
Multicultural Organisations: challenges and a role for logistics. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 5, (2), 73-85.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and
Citizenship Behaviors. Organization Studies, 26, 443–464.
Carroll, A. B. (1978). Linking business ethics to behaviour in organisations. SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 43, 4-11.
Carnevale, P. J. and Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative
problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1300-1309.
Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.
Carron, A. V. and Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement
issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M., Wheeler, J. and Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and
241
performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
24, 168.188.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander
(Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd
ed.) (pp.91–109). New York:
Harper & Row.
Cavanagh, P. A. (2011). Comparison of male Saudi Arabian business managers' self-
rated leadership styles in one organization: Influence of education origin.
Published PhD thesis. Business Administration, University of Phoenix.
Chang, A., and Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-
group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405.
Chang, A., Bordia, P., and Duck, J. (2003) Punctuated Equilibrium and Linear
Progression: Toward A New Understanding of Group Development. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 106-117.
Chang, Y.S., Labovitz, G. and Rosansky, V. (1992). Making Quality Work. Essex
Junction, VT: Oliver Wright Publications.
Chansler, P. A., Swamidass, P. M., and Cammann, C. (2003). Self-managing work
teams: An empirical study of group cohesiveness in “natural work groups” at a
Harley-Davidson motor company plant. Small Group Research, 34, 101-120.
Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A.
Hogg and R.S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group
processes (pp. 376-399). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Chen, Y. F. (2005). Cross-cultural leadership: Goal interdependence and leader-
member relations in foreign ventures in China, Journal of international
management, 11(3), 417-439.
Chen, L. T., Chen, C. W., Chen, C. Y. (2010). Are educational background and gender
moderator variables for leadership, satisfaction and organizational commitment?.
African Journal of Business Management, 4 (2), 248-261.
Cerimagic, S. (2010). Cross cultural project management characteristics between
Australia and the United Arab Emirates. Paper presented at the Construction,
Building and Real Estate research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors (RICS): COBRA, Paris, France.
Cho, J. J., Ozment, J., Sink, H. (2008). Logistics capability, logistics outsourcing and
firm performance in an e-commerce market. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 38 (5), 336-359.
242
Cho, J. and Dansereau, F. (2010) Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study
of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship
behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 409–421.
Choi, Y. And Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice,
The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397-421.
Chrobot-Mason, D. and Ruderman, M. N. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In
M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of
workplace diversity (pp. 100-121). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M. N., Weber, T. J., Ohlott, P. J., and Dalton, M.A.
(2007). Illuminating a cross-cultural leadership challenge: when identity groups
collide. The international Journal of Human Resource Management, 2011-2-36.
Chung, A., Chen, I-Heng, Lee, A.Y., Chen, H. C. and Lin, Y. (2011). Charismatic
leadership and self-leadership A relationship of substitution or supplementation in
the contexts of internalization and identification?. Organisational Change and
Management, 24 (3), 299-313.
Cicero, L. Bonaiuto M., Pierro A., Van Knippenberg, D.(2008). Employees‟ work effort
as a function of leader group prototypicality: the moderating role of team
identification. Elsevier Masson, 117–124.
Cicero, L. Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and Uncertainty:
How Role Ambiguity Affects the Relationship between Leader Group
Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness. British Journal of Management,
(21), 411–421.
Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: mapping the territory. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 5(1), 5–28.
Ciulla, J. B. (2005b). Integrating leadership with Ethics: is good leadership contrary to
human nature? In D. Jonathan, S. Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on Responsible
leadership and Governance in Global Business (pp.159-179). UK: Edward Elgar
publishing limited.
Ciulla, J. B. (2005a). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before us.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 14, 323-335.
Clark, A. E. (2011). The Organisational Commitment of Workers in OECD Countries.
Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques, 22 (1), 8-27.
243
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86,
278–321.
Collis, J., and Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research (2nd
ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: a practical guide for
undergraduate and postgraduate students. (3rd
ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. and Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–44.
Colquitt, J. A. and Jackson, L. (2006). Justice in teams: The context sensitivity of
justice rules across individual and team contexts. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 868-899.
Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.
Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12
(4), 637-647.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor
in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1997). Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity
of the Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 290-302.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organisations.
London: Sage.
Conner, D. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard.
Coombes, H. (2001). Research Using IT. UK: Palgrave.
Costa, D. L. and Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic Engagement and Community
Heterogeneity: An Economist‟s Perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1 (1), 103–
11.
Côté, S., Lopez, P. N., Salovey, P. and Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence
244
and leadership emergence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496–508.
Coy, P. G. and Woehrle, L. M. (2000). Social Conflicts and Collective Identities.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Cress, U. (2008). The interaction between groups and individuals: The challenge of
statistically analysing cooperative learning, Knowledge Media Research Centre.
Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://delivery. acm.org/
10.1145/1600000/1599833/p183cress.pdf?ip=148.197.8.238&acc=ACTIVE%20S
ERVICE&CFID=57915552&CFTOKEN=32725025&__acm__=1323863379_80
07809b344b31511b4d4f2fa17407d6.
Creswell, J. (2004). Educational research: planning, conducing, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Crocker, L., and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Cropanzano, R. and Baron, R. A. (1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: The
moderating effect of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 2: 5-26.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83:
85-113.
Cox, T.H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and
practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cudeck, R., and O‟Dell, L.L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in
unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations.
Psychological Bulletin, 115,475-487.
Cummings, G., Lee, H., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Wong, C., Paul, L.Stafford, E.
(2008). Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review. Journal of
Health Services Research & Policy. 13(4), 240–248.
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization Development and Change
(8th
ed.). New York: Thomson.
245
Curran. P. J., West, S. G. and Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to
nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, I, 16-29.
Curşeu, P. L. (2011). Intra-Group Conflict and Teamwork Quality: The Moderating
Role of Leadership Styles. Administrative Sciences, 1, 3-13.
Curşeu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does Conflict Shatter Trust or Does Trust
Obliterate Conflict? Revisiting the Relationships Between Team Diversity,
Conflict, and Trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 14(1),
66–79.
Daft, R. L. (2002). The Leadership Experience (2nd
ed). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Davidovitz, R. and Mikulincer, M. Shaver, P. R. (2007). Leaders as Attachment
Figures: Leaders‟ Attachment Orientations Predict Leadership-Related Mental
Representations and Followers‟ Performance and Mental Health, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93(. 4), 632–650
David, A. Harrison, K. and Klein, J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
Dean, P., J. (1997). Examining the profession and the practice of business ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (15), 1637-1649.
De Coninck, J. B. (2010). The influence of ethical climate on marketing employees' job
attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 384–391.
De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation.
The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 858–866.
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D.; van Dijke, M. and Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Self-
sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification
matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 233-245
De Dreu, C. W. and Van Vianen, A. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
22(3), 309–328.
De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741–749.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., and Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review
246
organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.
De Hoogh, A. H. B. and Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership,
relationships with leader‟s social responsibility, top management team
effectiveness and subordinates‟ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 297-311.
Demers, J. (2002). Crossing the cultural divides. CMA Management, 76 (6), 1-28.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: for small-scale social research
projects (4th
ed). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University
De Young, C. P., Emerson, M. O. Yancy, G, and Kim, K. C. (2003). United by faith:
multiracial congregations as a response to the racial divide. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dima, D. C. David, D. Păiuşan, L. (2010). Specific features of Islamic accounting
and cultural paradigm. MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich,
Germany.
Dionne, G., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., Laplante, D. and Perusse, D. (2003). Physical
aggression and expressive vocabulary in 19-month-old twins. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 261–273.
Dipboye, R. L., Colella A. (2005). Discrimination at work: The psychological and
organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
DiStefano, J. J., and Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in
global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45–63.
Dorfman, P. W. and House, R. J. (2004). Cultural Influence on Organizational
Leadership: Literature Review, Theoretical Rationale, and GLOBE Project Goals,
in R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (Eds),
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp.
51–67). CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Dorfman, W. P. House. R. J. (2004) Global Influences on Organisational Leadership:
Literature Review, Theoretical Rationale and Global Project Goals. In P. J.
Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, Leadership and
Organisations. The Global Study of 62 Societies (pp. 201-208). CA: SAGE,
Thousand Oaks.
Drummond and Al-Anazi, F (1997). Cross Cultural Management. An International
247
Journal, 4 (4), 3-8.
Drury, J. and Reicher, S. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative
study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 35, 35 – 58.
Dunlop, W. L., Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Does similarity make a difference?
Predicting cohesion and attendance behaviors within exercise group settings.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 258-266
Dunlop, P. D. and Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship
behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole
barrel. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 67–80.
Dutton, J. E. and Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administration Social Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Easterby-Smith, M. P. V., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2008). Management research:
theory and research. London: Sage,
Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.L, Lance, C.E. (1999). Motivational bases of
affective organizational commitment: a partial test of an integrative theoretical
model. Occupationl Organisational Psycholgy, 72: 463-483.
Eckardt, M. (2003). Explaining Legal Change from an Evolutionary Economics
Perspective. German Law Journal, 9 (4), 437-464.
Edmondson, A. C. and McManus, S., E. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management
Field Research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the
context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12(2), 80-88.
Eldabi, T., Irani, Z., Ray, P., and Love, P. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative
Decision-making Methods in Simulation Modelling. Management Decision, 40,
64-75.
Elenkov, D. S. and Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on
innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44,
357-369.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and
groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group
performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P. and Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorisation,
248
commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of
social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
Emerson, M. O. and Kim, K. C. (2003). Multiracial congregations: an analysis of their
development and a typology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 217-
227.
Emerson, M. O. and Woo, R. M. (2006). People of the dream: Multiracial
congregations in the United States. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Employees number Retraved September 23, 2011from http://www.sabic.com/corporate
/ar/ourcommitments/ people/ default.aspx.
Erez, M. (2010). Commentary Culture and job design. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 31, 389-400.
Erumban, A. A. and De Jonge, S.B., (2006). Cross-country differences in ICT
adoption: A consequence of culture?. Journal of World Business, 41, 302-314.
Ethics Resource Centre (2007). Retreved September 1, 2011, from http://
www.ethics.org/
Evans, N. J. and Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The Group Attitude Scale: A measure of attraction
to group. Small Group Behavior, 2, 203-216.
Fairholm, G. W. (1991). Values Leadership: Toward a New Philosophy of Leadership.
New York: Praeger.
Fairholm, G. W. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Feldt, L.S., woodruff, D. and Salih, F. (1987). Statistical inference for coefficient alpha.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 93-103.
Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2010). Followers‟ personality and the perception of
transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British
Journal of Management, 21, 393–410.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–
282.
Field, Andy (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Fielding, K. S. and Hogg, M. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and
leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 1, 39-51.
Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization
Science, 5: 403-420.
249
Fisher, S. (1990). The evolution of psychological concepts about the body. In T. F. Cash
& T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 3–
20). New York: Guilford Press.
Fleury, M. T. L. (1999). The management of culture diversity: lessons from Brazilian
companies. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99 (3), 109-14.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effect of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-
130.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., and Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining
andengaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-
25.
French, R. (2010). Cross-Cultural management: In Work Organisations. London: the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Friedrich, T. L., Byrne, C. L. and Mumford, M.D. (2009). Methodological and
theoretical considerations in survey research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1),
57–60.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A. Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new
organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-
politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18
(11), 71 – 86.
Fry, L. and Kriger, M. (2009).Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple
levels of being as context for effective leadership. Human Relations, 62(11),
1667-1696.
Fulmer, R.M. (2004). The challenge of ethical leadership. Organisational Dynamics,
33(3), 307-317.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K. and, Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative
review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271–
287.
Furnham, A. and Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of behaviour at work: Understanding
and avoiding employees leaving, thieving and deceiving. Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Gakahu, N. (2011). The Social Implications of A Global Culture To Africa: Kenya‟s
Case. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2(4), 163-170
250
Gallagher, A. and Tschudin, V. (2010). Educating for ethical leadership. Nurse
Education Today, 30, 224–227.
Gardner, W. L., and Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58.
Gee, G. C. (2002). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between institutional and
individual racial discrimination and health status. American Journal of Public
Health, 92, 615–623.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide
andreference. 11.0 update (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Giessner, S. R., Sleebos, E. and van Knippenberg, D. (2003). License to fail?: Leader
prototypicality, leader performance, and leadership endorsement. Paper presented
at the EAESP Small Group Meeting on New Directions in Leadership Research,
Amsterdam.
Giessner, S. R. and van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition,
leader group prototypicality and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after
leader failure. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 105,
14-35.
Gill, J. Johnson, P. and Clark, M. (2010). Research methods for managers (4th
ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE
Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London and New York: Continuum.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student
attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6),
669–700.
Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders: Implications of the DSM IV-TR
in assessing dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,
392–414.
Goldman, B., Gutek B, Stein, J. H., Lewis K. (2006). Employment discrimination in
organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 32, 786–
830.
Goldstein, H. (2010). Multilevel Statistical Models (4th
ed.). West Sussex, UK: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Goodstein, L. D. (1981). Commentary: Do American theories apply abroad?
251
Organizational Dynamics, 49–54.
Gorrill, J. (2007). Doing business in Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian social and business
culture. Retrieved December 3, 2011 from http://www. communicaid.com/cross-
cultural-training/culture-for-business-and-management/doing-business-in/Saudi-
arabian-business-and-social-culture.php.
Green, S. B. and Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh:
Analyzing and understanding data (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Gröschl, S. and Doherty, L. (1999). Diversity management in practice. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(6), 262-8.
Gröschl, S. and Doherty, L. (2006). The Complexity of Culture: Using the appraisal
process to compare French and British managers in a UK based international hotel
organisation . International Journal of Hospitality Management , 25(2) , 313 –
334 .
Hager, M., Wilson, S.m Pollak, T. and Rooney, P. (2003). Response rates for mail
surveys of nonprofits organisations: a review and empirical test. Nonprofits
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (2), 252-267.
Hair, J. F., Celsi, M. W., Mony, A. H., Samouel, P., Page, M. J. (2011). Essentials of
Business Research Methods. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Hair, J. Tatham, R., and Anderson, R. (2002). Multivariate data analysis. London:
Prentice Hall PTR.
Hain, S. (2011). Risk perception and risk management in the Middle East market:
theory and practice of multinational enterprises in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Risk
Research, 14 (7), 1–17.
Hammersley, M. (2007). Methodological Paradigms in Educational Research. London:
TLRP. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://www.bera.ac.uk/
methodological-paradigms-in-educational-research/.
Hammoudeh, M. M. (2012). Islamic Values and Management Practices: Quality and
Transformation in the Arab World. UK: Gower Publishing Limited.
Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, International Students, and Perceived Discrimination:
Implications for Educators and Counsellors. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10 (2), 157-172.
Harrison, D. A, Price, K, H. and Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:
time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion.
252
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
Harrison, D. A, Price, K, H. and Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.
Hart, D. K. (1988). Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: Organizational ethics and
the founding fathers. Exchange, 2-7.
Hart, S.D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual
and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 121–137.
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach.
London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd
ed.). London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O‟Brien, A., and Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social
influence, and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-
categorization model of stress. Stress and Health, 20, 3-9.
Haslam, S. A. and Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational
psychology: concepts, controversies and contributions. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39–118.
Haslam, S. A. and Platow, M. J. (2001). Your wish is our command: The role of shared
social identity in translating a leader‟s vision into followers‟ action. In: M. A.
Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts
(pp. 213–228). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T.and N. Ellemers (2003). More than a metaphor:
organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of
Management, 14, 357–369.
Hayes, A. (2006). Aprimer onmultilevel modeling. HumanCommunication Research,
32, 385–410.
Hermans, H.J., and Dimaggio, G. (2007). Self, identity, and globalization in times of
uncertainty: A dialogical analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11(1), 31–61.
Hepworth, W. and Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and
charismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occuptional Health
Psychol gy, 9, 176–85.
Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change:
253
Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–
487.
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (1999). The relevance of charisma for transformational
leadership in stable organizations. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12 (2), 105-19.
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E. and Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building
theoretical and empirical bridges across level: Multilevel research in management.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.
Hobman, E. V. and Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the
dissimilarity-conflict relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4),
483−507.
Hobman, E.V. and Jackson, C.J. (2011). The effects of transformational leadership
behaviours on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. European journal
of work and organizational psychology, 20 (4), 553-580.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values, abridged version. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural
Cooperation and its Impact for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequence (2nd
ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2009). Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context.
Retrieved September 22, 2011, from: http://www.geert-hofstede.com
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind revised and expanded (3rd
ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hogan, R., and Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.
Hogg M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness. New York: New
York University Press.
254
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity. In W. P.
Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri
Tajfel, (pp. 65-93). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hogg, M. A., (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook
of self and identity, (pp. 462–479). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hogg, M. A, Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A.and Weeden, K.
(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange
theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991-1004.
Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Hogg, M. A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social Identity and Leadership Processes
in Groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 243-295.
Houghton, J. D. and Yoho, S.K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and
psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11 (4), 65-84.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1992). Charismatic leadership in service-producing organizations.
International Journal of Service Industry Management. 3 (2), 5-16.
House, R., and Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.
Leadership Quarterly. 3(2), 81-108.
House, R., and Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational,
charismatic and visionary theories. In M. Chemmers and R. Ayman (Eds.).
Leadership theory and research perspectives and directions (pp. 577-594).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., and Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the
U.S. presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396
House, R. J., Wright, N. S. and Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on
255
organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C.
Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New Perspectives in International Industrial
Organizational Psychology (pp. 535-625). San Francisco: New Lexington.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1992). The Ethics of Charismatic Leadership:
Submission or Liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 43-54.
Howell, J. M., Shamir B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,
30, 96– 112.
Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. and Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure
analysis be trusted?. Psychological Bulletin, 11(2), 351-362.
Hunt, J. (1981). Indicators for nursing practice: The use of research findings. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 6(3), 189-194.
Hunter S. T, Bedell-Avers, K. and Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership
study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(5): 436–446.
Huselid, M. and Day, L. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and
turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76,380-391.
Husted, B. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business
Studies, 30(2): 339–360.
Hyatt, D. E. and Ruddy, T. H. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work
team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 553-585.
International Survey Research. (n.d.) Retention Matters: A proactive strategy to address
turnover. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.isrinsight.
com/pdf/insight/retentionmatters.pdf.
Jackson, B. and Parry, K. (2008). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably
Cheap Book about Studying Leadership. London: SAGE.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E. and Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of
diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team
256
effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 7-261). San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
James, B. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global
Age. American Educational Research Association, 37 (3), 129–139.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., De Luque, M. S. and House, R. (2006). In the eye of the
beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90.
Javidan, M. and Waldman, D. A. (2003). Exploring charismatic leadership in public
sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administration Review, 63(2),
229-242.
Jayakody, J. A .S. K. (2008). Charismatic leadership in Sri Lankan business
organizations. Journal of Management Development, 27, 5: 480-498.
Jayasingam, S. and Cheng, M. Y. (2009). Leadership style and perception of
effectiveness: Enlightening Malaysian managers. Asian Social Science, 5(2), 45
65.
Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and
disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A. and Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual
conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 11(1), 56-73.
Jehn, K. A. and Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 238-251.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1999). Why difference makes a
difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
257
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Chenoun-Gee, H. (2001). The relative influence of IS project
implementation policies and project leadership on eventual outcomes. Project
Manage, 32 (3), 49–55.
Jin, S., Seo, M., and Shapiro, D. L. (2008). Revisiting the link between leaders’
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: The moderating role of
emotional intensity. Best Paper Proceedings. New York: Academy of
Management Press.
Johnson, K. L. (1997). Adhesion and friction between a smooth elastic spherical
asperity and a plane surface. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 453,
163.
Johnston, R. (2000). Complaint management: forget customer satisfaction, improve the
process. Orinsight, Operational Research Society, 13 (4), 9-13.
Jung, D. I., and Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The
role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group
performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.
Kacmar, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale
(POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 51, 193–205.
Kalshoven, K. and Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Ethical Leader Behaviour and Leader
Effectiveness: The Role of Prototypicality and Trust. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 5 (2), 202-120.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N. and De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011a). Ethical Leader
Behavior and Big Five Factors of Personality, Journal of Business Ethics, 100,
349–366
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N. and De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011b). Ethical leadership
at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.
Kankanhalli, A., Tand, C.Y., Wei, K-K. and Holmees, C. (2004). Cross-cultural
differences and information systems developer values. Decision Support Systems,
38, 183-195.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders.
Canadian Journal of administrative science, 18(4), 257-265.
Kanungo, R. N. and Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical Dimensions of Leadership.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
258
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
Kark, R. and Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead (vol. 2, PP. 67–91). Amsterdam: JA1 Press.
Kerman, M. and Hanges, P. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents
and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal
of AppliedPsychology, 87, 916-928.
Key, J. (1997). Reliability and Validity. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from
http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage18. htm.
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran &
M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research
(PP. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W. and Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and
organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis using work groups and
individuals. Journal of Management, 26, 775–793.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A. andTreviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases,
and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31.
Krathwohl, D. (1997). Methods of Educational and social Science Research: An
Integrated approach, Addison Wesley Longman (2nd
ed.). ISBN: Sage.
Krauss, S.E. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer. The
Qualitative Report, 10 (4), 758-770.
Kreft, I. G. G. and De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kreps, D. M. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In K. Shepsle, and J. Alt
(Eds.), Perspective on positive political economy (pp. 78-98). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Kriesberg, L. (2003). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (2nd
ed.).
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and
definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
259
ethnology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 489-513.
Korsgaard, A, Jeong S, and Mahony, D. (2008). Multilevel view of intragroup conflict.
Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In
W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London, UK:
Wiley.
Kuokkanen, L., Leino-Kilpi, H. and Katajisto, J. (2003) Nurse empowerment, job-
related satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Care
Quality, 18(3), 184–192.
Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation
of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124–
143.
Larsson, S. and Ronnmark, L. (1996). The concept of charismatic leadership: its
application to an analysis of social movements and a voluntary organization in
Sweden. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9 (7), 32-44.
Laschinger, H. and Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in
the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics,
23 (1), 6–13.
Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: A case study of TGI Friday's
restaurants. Personnel Review, 29(5), 1 - 18.
Lavaty, S. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001). Managing and understanding the French
employee. Management Research News, 24 (3/4), 45-8.
Lawrence, V. J. (1997). Multiculturalism, diversity, cultural pluralism: „tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth‟. Journal of Black Studies, 27(3), 318–
333.
Leana, C. R. (1985). A partial test of Janis‟s groupthink model: effects of group
cohesiveness and leader behaviour on defective decision making. Journal of
Management, 11, 5- 17.
260
Lee, C., Cheng, T.C.E. Yeung, A. C.L. and Lai, K. (2011). An empirical study of
transformational leadership, team performance and service equality in retail
banks. . Omega, 39, 690–701.
Lee, C., F. and Chen, Z. (2011). Promoting group potency in project teams: The
importance of group identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32,
1147–1162
Lee, N. and Nathan, M. (2010). Knowledge workers, cultural diversity and innovation:
evidence from London. Knowledge-Based Development, 1, (1/2), 53-78.
Lenartowicz, T. and Johnson, J. P. (2002). Comparing managerial values in twelve
Latin American countries: An exploratory study. Management International Review,
42(3), 279–307.
Lester, R. B. (1981). Building a sustainable society. New York: London: Norton.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M. and Korsgaard, M. W. (2002). The antecedents and
consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed
work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 352–368.
Leveson, L., Joiner, T. A., and Bakalis, S. (2009). Managing cultural diversity and
perceived organizational support: Evidence from Australia. International Journal
of Manpower, 30 (4), 377-392.
Levay, C. (2010). Charismatic leadership in resistance to change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 127–14.
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Tanzer, N. K. and Che, H. (2011). Distal charismatic leadership
and follower effects: An examination of Conger and Kanungo‟s conceptualization
of charisma in China. Leadership, 7(3) 251–273
Lim, T. (2011). Relationships among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
learning organization culture in one Korean private organization. Asia Pacific
education review, 11(3), 311-320.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance,
organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change
Management, 4, 193–215.
Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New
York: Plenum.
Lisak, A. and Erez, M. (2009). Leaders and followers in multi-cultural teams: their
effects on team communication, team identity and team effectiveness. International
Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration proceedings, 81-88.
261
Lok, P., Westwood, R. and Crawford, J. (2005). Perceptions of organisational
subculture and their significance for organisational commitment. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 54, 490–514.
López-zafra, L., Garcia-Retamero, R and Landa, J.M. A. (2008). The role of
transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on
leadership emergence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (3), 37-49.
Lord, R. G. and Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J. and Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of
leadership: the role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–37.
Lott, A. J. and Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A
review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological
Bulletin, 64, 259–309.
Louis, M. R. and Richard, A. P. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research a
comprehensive guide (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lui, H. and Stack J. (2009). Globalization: Debunking the myths. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Malshe, A., Al-Khatib, J., Al-Habib, M. and Ezzi, S. (2012). Exploration of sales-
marketing interface nuances in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Business Research, 65,
1119–1125
Marcus, J. (1995). The National Front and French politics: the resistible rise of Jean-
Marie Le Pen. London: Macmillan.
Mannix, E., and Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2) 31–55.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Mark, M. M. and Folger, R. (1984). Reponses to relative deprivation: A conceptual
framework. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (vol.
5, pp. 192-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mathieu, J., Zajac, D. (1990). A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol. Bull, 108(2): 171-194.
Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the world (2nd
ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
262
Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R. and Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence
processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 279-300.
Masuda, A., (2005). Power Motives and Core Self Evaluation as Correlates of
Managerial Morlity. University at albay, SUNY paper presented at the 20th
annual meeting of the society for industrial Organisational Psychology. Los
angeles CA: (SIOP).
Mazur, B. (2010). Cultural Diversity in Organisational Theory and Practice. Journal of
Intercultural Management, 2 (2), 5–15
McCall, M. and Hollenbeck, G. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of
international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation.
McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2002). Marketing research: the impact of the Internet.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McDonald, G. M. and Zepp, R. A. (1989). Business ethics: Practical proposals. Journal
of management development, 8 (1), 55-66.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
McFarlin, D. B. and Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes, Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
McMahon, A. (2010). Does workplace diversity matter? A survey of empirical studies
on diversity and firm performance, 2000-09. Journal of Diversity Management,
5(2), 37-48.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: a triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1):
89-118.
Mellahi, K. (2001). Differences and Similarities in Future Managerial Values: A Five
Cultures Comparative Study. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, 8(1), 45-58.
Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G. and Maznevski, M. (2008). Global
leadership: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.
263
Messick, D. M. and Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. In M.R. Rosenzweig
and L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 45-81). Palo Alto. CA:
Annual Reviews.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. and Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551
Meyer, J. P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a
general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 1,
20–52.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change
and innovation implementation behaviour: The role of charismatic leadership and
employees‟ trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399-
417.
Miles, P. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). When Weak Groups are Strong: How Low
Cohesion Groups Allow Individuals to Act According to Their Personal Absence
Tolerance Norms. Social Justice Research, 24 (3), 207-130.
Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C.A. and Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003) Diversity and creativity in work
groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link
diversity and performance. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.), Group
Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration (pp. 32–62). Oxford University
Press, New York,.
Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding
the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of
Management Review, 21 (2), 402–433.
Ministry of Commerce. (2004). the Quarterly Report. Saudi Arabia. Riyadh. (In Arabic)
Ministry of Labour, Saudi Arabia (2007). Force work Statistics. Riyadh: Ministry of
Labour.
264
Minkes, L., Small, M. W. and Chatterjee, S. R. (1999). Leadership and Business Ethics:
Does It Matter? Implications for Management. Journal of Business Ethics. 20,
327–335.
Mohammed, S. and Angle, A. C. (2004). Surface and deep-level diversity in work
groups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on
relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 1015–1039.
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J. and Amason, A. C. (2007). Don‟t take it personally:
Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(5): 733-758.
Morrison, A. (2006). Ethical Standards and Global Leadership. In: M. William. and W.
Elizabeth (Eds.). Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 4, PP. 265-180). U.K:
Emerald Group.
Mowday, R. T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 387–401.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual Organization. Communications of the ACM, 40, (9).
30-37.
Muethel, M. and Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared
leadership in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16
(2010) 234–246.
Mughan, A., Bean, C. and McAllister, I. (2003). Economic globalization, job insecurity
and the populist reaction. Electoral Studies, 22, 617−633.
Mulinge, M. M. (2001). Employer control of employees: Extending the Lincoln-
Kalleberg corporatist model of satisfaction and attachment. Human Relations, 54,
285-318.
Myers, M. D. and Tan, F.B. (2002). Beyond models of national culture in information
systems research. Journal of Global Information Management, 10 (1), 24-32.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership
and organisational change. California Management Review. 77-97.
Neal, M. (2010). When Arab-expatriate relations work well: Diversity and discourse in
the Gulf Arab workplace. Team Performance Management, 16, 242–266.
Neuman, W. (2004). Basics of Social research: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson
Nibler, R., and Harris, K. L. (2003). The effects of culture and cohesiveness on
265
intragroup conflict and effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 613-
631.
Northcraft, G., Polzer, J., Neale, M., and Kramer, R. (1995). Diversity, Social identity,
and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In S. E.
Jackson and M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms
for a changing workplace (pp. 69-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd Ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Nyhan, R.C. and Marlowe, H.A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of
the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21 (5), 614-35.
O'Connor, J. O., Mumford. M. D., Clifton, T. C, Gessner, T. L. and Connelly, M. S.
(1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A histriometric study.
Leadership Quarterly, 6: 529-555.
Olson, B., Parayitam, S. and Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic Decision Making: The Effects of
Cognitive Diversity, Conflict and Trust on Decision Outcomes. Journal of
Management, 33(2): 196-222.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1997). Questionnaire Design Interviewing and attitude
Measurement (New Edition). London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
O'Reilly, C. A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence
and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: a social information
processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193-206.
Ospina, S., Schall, E., Godsoe, B and Dodge, J. (2004). Appreciative Narratives as
Leadership Research: Matching Method to Lens. In D., Cooperrider and M, Avital
(Eds.). Advances in Appreciative Inquiry (pp 147- 170),.Constructive Discourse
and Human Organization, Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Ottaviano G. I. P. and Peri, G. (2006). The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity:
Evidence from US Cities, Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 9-44.
Ottaviano G. I. P. and Peri, G. (2005). Cities and Cultures, Journal of Urban
Economics, 58, 304-337.
Oxford English Dictionary (2009). “Paternalism”, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
266
Parry, K. W. and Proctor-Thompson S. B. (2002). Perceived Integrity of
Transformational Leaders in Organizational Settings. Journal of Business Ethics,
35(2), 75–96.
Partington, D. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative issues in research design’, Essential
Skills forManagement Research. London: SAGE.
Patel, C., Budhwar, P. and Varma, A. (2011). Overall justice, work group identification
and work outcomes: Test of moderated mediation process. Journal of World
Business.
Paul, J., Costley, D. L., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W. and Trafimow, D. (2001). The
effects of charismatic leadership on followers‟ self-concept accessibility. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1821–1844.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An
intervening process theory. Organization Science, 6, 615–631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. and Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an
analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Pellegrini, E. and Scandura, T. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 566-93.
Peltokorpi, V. (2006). The impact of relational diversity and socio-cultural context on
interpersonal communication: Nordic subsidiaries in Japan. Asian Business &
Management, 5(3), 333–356.
Peng, A. C. and Tjosvold, D. (2011). Social face concerns and conflict avoidance of
Chinese employees with their Western or Chinese managers. Human relations
(New York), 64 (8), 1031–1050.
Perryer, C. and Jordan, C. (2005). The influence of leader behaviours on organizational
commitment: A study in the Australian public sector. International Journal of
Public Administration, 28, 379-396.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of
the Work Force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective
management of people. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 95–108.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 783–794.
267
Pillai, R. and Meindl, J.R. (1991). The effect of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic
leadership: a laboratory study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 235-9.
Pillai, R. and Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A „„meso‟‟ level examination
of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic
leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5), 643–664.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. S. and Tan, J. J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favour of
procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the USA, India, Germany
and Hong Kong (China). The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12,
312-32.
Pinkley, R. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126.
Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardson, A. M. and Jones, B. D. (1983).
Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.
Platow, M. J. and van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership
endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive
intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.
Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S: B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric
properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced "substitutes for
leadership" scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702-713.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26 (3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., Mackenzie, S. B. and Wiliams, M. l. (1993). Do
substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical
examination of Kerr and Jermier‟s situational leadership model. Organisational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 54, 1-44.
Podsiadlowski, A. and Ward, C. (2010). Global mobility and bias in the workplace. In
S.C. Carr (Ed.), The Psychology of Global Mobility (pp. 279-300). New York:
Springer.
Polit, D. and Beck, C. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (7th
ed).
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
268
Porter L, W. and Crampon W, Smith F. (1976). Organizational commitment and
managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 15, 87-98.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric techctinas. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Popper, M. (1999). The source of motivation of personalized and socialized charismatic
leaders. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 22, 231-246.
Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized
charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 19(6), 798-809.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand
Oaks, CA7 Sage.
Priem, R., and Price, K. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical
inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making.
Group and Organization Studies, 16, 206-225.
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T. A. and Osiri, J. K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to
organizational performance: a conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity
Management, 4 (4), 13-21.
Putnam, L. (1994). Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 285-299.
Putnam, R. D. (2003). Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital. Paper presented at the
Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital, ESRC Families and Social Capital Research
Group Seminar. London: British Academy.
Ragins, B. R. and Gonzalez, J. A. (2003). Understanding diversity in organizations:
Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of the science (2nd
ed.), ( pp. 125–164). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Ramady, M. (2010). The Saudi Arabian Economy: Policies, Achievements and
Challenges (2nd
ed.). New York: Springer.
Rantz, R. (2002). Leading urban institutions of higher education in the new
millennium. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8) 456-466.
269
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The
Leadership Quarterly. 16, 655-687.
Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. and Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of
leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of
social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.
Remmé, J., Jones, S., van Der Heijdem, B. and Bono, S. D. (2008). Leadership, Change
and Responsibility. Meyer & Meyer Media: UK.
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A
resource-based view. Academyof Management Journal, 43, 164–177.
Riggio, M. C. (2004). Carnival: Culture in action: The Trinidad experience. Routledge:
New York.
Rispoli, L. and Leung, D. (2011). The Contribution of Small and Medium-Sized
Businesses to Gross Domestic Product: A Canada-United States Comparison.
Economic Analysis Research Paper Series No. 070. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1864144
Rivera-Vazques, J., Ortiz-Fournier, L. and Flores, F. (2009). Overcoming cultural
barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(5), 257-270.
Roberge, M. and van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity:
When and how does diversity increase group performance? Human
Resource Management Review, 20, 295–308
Roberson, Q. and Park, H. (2007). Examining the link between diversity and firm
performance: The effects of diversity reputation and leader racial diversity. Group
& Organization Management, 32, 548-568.
Robertson, C., Crittenden, W., Brady, M., and Hoffman, J. (2002). Situational ethics
across borders: A multicultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 327–
338.
Robertson, C. J., Gilley, K. M. and Street, M. D. (2003). The relationship between
ethics and firm practices in Russia and the United States. Journal of World
Business, 38 375–384.
Robinson, G., Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 21–31.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World research (2nd
ed.).UK: Blackwell.
270
Robson, C. (2011). Real World research (3rd
ed.). Chichester: Wiley
Rosener, J. B. (1995). America's competitive secret: utilizing women as a management
strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosener, J.B. (2011). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119-125.
Rosenthal, S. A., Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 617–633.
Ross, R. (1989). Conflict, In R. Ross and J. Ross (Eds.), Small groups in organizational
settings (pp. 139-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rowden, R.W. (2000). The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and
organisational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
21, 30-5.
Rowold, J. and Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership:
assessing the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of the MLQ and CKS.
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121–33.
Rowold, J., Kersting, M. (2008). The assessment of charismatic leadership: Validity of a
German version of the Conger-Kanungo Scale (CKS). European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 24, 124–130.
Rowold J, Laukamp L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance
indicators. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 58(4):602–21
SABIC (2010). A culture of innovation, a year of success Report & Accounts. Saudi
Arabia: SABIC press.
SABIC (2011). A culture of innovation, a year of success Report & Accounts. Saudi
Arabia: SABIC press.
Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sánchez, J.C., and Yurrebaso, A. (2009). Group cohesion: Relationships with work
team culture. Psicothema, 21(1), 97-104.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students (5th
ed.). Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall..
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd
ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, H. E. (2011). What is culture?. In M. Goodyan and J. Gittell (Ed.). Sociology of
271
organisations structures and relationships, (pp. 311-314). London: SAGA.
Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., and Sebora, T. C. (2002). Leadership and ethics
in work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization
Management, 27, 272-293.
Schmitt, M. T. and Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly:
Threats to one‟s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510–517.
Schwenk, C. and Valacich, J. S. (1994). Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical
inquiry on individuals versus groups. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 59, 210-222.
Scull, B., Taylor, L., Temple, M.., Romanitha , J. J. (2010). Promoting Team
Collaboration: Understanding Personality, Conflict Resolution, Workplace
Teams, and Cultural Diversity. Research on Teams and Collaboration, 1-43.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added Leadership: How to get extraordinary
performance in school. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanonich.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., and Arthur, M, b. (1993). The motivational effect of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organisational Science,
4(4), 577-594.
Shastri, R .K., Shashi, M. K. and Sinha A (2010). Charismatic leadership and
organizational commitment: An Indian perspective. African Journal of Business
Management, 4(10), 1946-1953.
Shapiro, E. R. (2001). The Changing Role of the CEO. Organisational and Social
Dynamics, 1, 130-142.
Shaw, M.F. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sherwin, D. S. (1983). The ethical roots of the business system. Harvard Business
Review, 183–92.
Shore, L. M. Herrera, B.G.C., Dean M. A., Ehrhart, HJung, K. D., IRandel, A. E. et al.
(2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?
Human Resource Management Review, 19, 117–133.
Seyranian, V. and Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring
the rhetoric of social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54-76.
Simola, S. K., Barling, J. and Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and
leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The
272
Leadership Quarterly, 21, 179–188.
Simons, T. and Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Simons, T. and Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The
effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 432-443.
Sims, R. L., Kroeck, K. G. (1994). The influence of ethical fit on employee
satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12),
939 – 947.
Singh, B., Gupta, P.K. and Venugopah, S. (2008). Organizational Commitment:
Revisited. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 67-68.
Singh, R. K. and Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Impact of impression management and value
congruence on attributed charisma. NMMS Management Review, 14 (1), 86-94.
Sivakumar, K. and Nakate, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede‟s framework:
avoiding the sample design pit in cross cultural research. Journal International
Business Studies, 32(3), 555-574.
Smith, A. N., Brief, A. P. and Colella A. (2010). Bias in organizations. In J.F. Dovidio,
M. Hewstone, P. Glick, and V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 441–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H.P., O‟Bannon, D. P. and Scully, J. A.,
(1994). Top management team demography and process: the role of social
integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39, 412–438.
Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Canney-Davison, S. C. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use
transnational teams to globalise your company. Organisational Dynamics, 32,
20-32.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K. and Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame
Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation..
American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.
Sosik, J. J. S., Juzbasich, J. and Chun, J. U. (2011). Effects of moral reasoning and
management level on ratings of charismatic leadership, in-role and extra-role
performance of managers: A multi-source examination. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22 (2), 434-450.
Spector, P. E. and Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self- report measures of job
273
stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints
scale, quantitative workload inventory and physical symptoms inventory. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.
Stace, D. A. and Dunphy, D. C. (1991). Beyond traditional paternalistic and traditional
approaches to organizational change and human resource strategies. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 263–283.
Stahl, G., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A. and Jonsen, K. (2010). Unravelling the effects
of cultural diversity in teams: ameta-analysis of research on multicultural work
groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction,
instrumental value and risk taking. Small Group Research, 14(2), 163-173.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. and Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate statistics (5th
ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of „La catégorisation
sociale.‟ In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psychologie Sociale (vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris:
Larousse.
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. New York: Cambridge
University press.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup conflict. In
S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tang, T. L. P. and Chiu, R. K. (2003) Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction,
commitment and unethical behaviour: Is the love of money the root of evil for
Hong Kong employees? Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 13–30.
Tansey, O. (2007). Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability
Sampling. Political Science and Politics, 40, 765–72.
Tansky, J. and Cohen, D, (2001). The relationship between organizational support,
employee development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly. 12: 3, 285-300.
Tatum, B. C. and. Eberlin, R. J. (2008). The relationship between organizational justice
and conflict style. Business Strategy Series, 9 (6), 1751-5637
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R. and Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team
274
Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion and Team Effectiveness. Group &
Organization Management, 34 (2), 170-205.
Tepper, B. J. and Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors‟ and
subordinates‟ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship
behaviours. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97–105.
Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology projects. Project
Manage, 18, 235-41.
Thomas, D. C. (1999).Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental
study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 30, 242–263.
Thomas, P. and Fraser, W. (1994). Linguistics, human communication and psychiatry.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 585–592.
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The
importance of mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78-99.
Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A. (1990). The Transformational Leader. New York:
John Wiley.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. and Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of
perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the
executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5-37.
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P. and Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral
manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California
Management Review, 42(4), 128–142.
Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-
Cultural Research, 27, 155-180.
Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tong, H. (2011). Cultural identity and language: a proposed framework for cultural
globalisation and glocalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 32(1), 55-69
Tosi, H. L. and Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation. Organization
Science, 15, 657-670.
Tóth, Z. and Zeiger, R. (2009). Going multicultural. Leadership in international
organizations in Finland case study: UPM-Kymmene's GTS. Degree program:
BBA International Business. 1-105.
275
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T.D., and Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational
demography and organisational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
549-579.
Tsui, A. S. and Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current
research and future directions. Lexington: Lanham, MD.
Turner, M. E. (1998). A social identify maintenance model of groupthink.
Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision processes, 73(2/3), 210-235.
Turner, J. C. and Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In
M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 25-65).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher S. D. and Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyran, K.L. and Gibson, C. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you get? The relationship
among surface- and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and
team reputation. Group and Organization Management, 33(1), 46-76.
Tyler, T. R. and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances
in experimental social psychology, 25, 115-191.
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, Frans A. J. and. Volberda, H. W.
(2010). Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of
Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies, 1-24
Valle, M. (1999). Crisis, culture and charisma: the new leader‟s work in public
organizations. Public Personnel Management. 28 (2), 245-57.
van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 171-203.
van Dick, R. Grojean, M. W., Oliver, C., and Jan, W.(2006). Identity and the Extra
Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283–301.
van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W. and Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between
leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower
attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
80, 133-150.
276
van Dick, R., Wagner, U. and Lemmer, G. ( 2004). The winds of change. multiple
identifications in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 13: 121– 38.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity
perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.
van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and
leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-14.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W. and Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group
diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N. and Wilke, H. (1994). Ingroup prototypicality and
persuasion: Determinants of heuristic and systematic message processing. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 289–300.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B. and De Cremer, D. (2005). Extending the
social identity model of leadership: The interactive effects of leader
prototypicality and leader procedural fairness. Paper presented at the XIIth
European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
van Knippenberg, D. and Van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73: 137–147.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A. and Homan, A. C. (2010). Diversity
faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human
Relation, 64(3), 307–336.
van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M. A. (2003). A Social Identity Model of Leadership
Effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25, 243–
295.
van Knippenberg , D., Jeremy, F. D., West , M. A. and Homan, A. C. (2011 ).
Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance.
Human Relations, 64(3) 307–336.
van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004).
Leadership, self and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 825-56.
277
van Teijlingen, E., Rennie, A. M., Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of conducting
and reporting pilot studies: The example of the Scottish Births Survey. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 34(3), 289-295
van Woerkom, M. and De Reuver, R. S. M. (2009). Predicting excellent management
performance in an intercultural context: A study of the influence of multicultural
personality on transformational leadership and performance. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 20(10), 2013-2029.
Varella, P., Javidan, M. and Waldman, D. A. (2011). A Model of Instrumental
Networks: The Roles of Socialized Charismatic Leadership and Group Behavior.
Organization Science, 22(6), 131-144.
Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and
work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(4), 345-
375.
Vorakulpipat, C., Rezgui, Y. and Hopfe, C. J. (2010). Value creating construction
virtual teams: A case study in the construction sector. Automation in
Construction, 19, 142–147.
Waldman, D. A. and Javidan, M. (2009). Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in
the integration of mergers and acquisitions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2),
130-42.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M. and Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the
strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly,
15(3), 355−380.
Waldman, D. A. and Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership:
levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 266–285.
Walumbwa, F, O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., and Peterson, S. J.
(2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based
measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.
Walumbwa,
F. O., Cropanzano, R. and Hartnell,
Chad, A. (2009). Organizational
justice, voluntary learning behaviour, and job performance: A test of the
mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 30, 1103–1126
Walumbwa, F. O., and Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:
transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and
278
withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 1083-1101.
Wang, E., Chou, H. and Jiang, J. (2005). The impacts of charismatic leadership style on
team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation.
International Journal of Project Management, 23, 173–180.
Webber, S. S. and Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related
diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 27(2), 141–62.
Weber, M. (1947). Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New
York: The Free Press.
Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K.W., Steel, R. P. and Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group
cohesiveness affect individuals‟ performance and organizational commitment? A
cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29, 472-494.
Weisner, T. S. (2009). Culture, Development, and Diversity: Expectable Pluralism,
Conflict and Similarity. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology,
37 (2), 181–196
Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., and van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009). Leadership and team
cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 358–370.
Wen-Cheng, W., Chien-Hung, L. and Ying-Chien, C. (2011). Cultural diversity and
information and communication impacts on Language Learning. International
Education Studies, 4 (2), 111-115.
White, W. (2000). Toward a New Recovery Movement: Historical Reflections on
Recovery, Treatment and Advocacy, paper presented at the Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment, Recovery Community Support Program Conference,
Alexandria, Virginia.
White, D. W. and Lean, E. (2008). The impact of perceived leader integrity on
subordinates in a work team environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 765–
778.
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis‟s groupthink model: the key role of collective
efficacy in decision fiascos. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 73(2–3), 185-209.
Widmeyer. W. N. and Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coaching sport.
Small Group Research, 22. 548-570.
279
Wilderom, C. P. M. and Berg, P. V. (2010). Socialized charismatic leadership and
organization culture as predictors of firm performance, Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K. and Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams:
The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 301-324.
Williams, K. Y., and O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, (pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Wilson, E. (2009). School-based research: a guide for education students. London:
SAGE.
Wolfe, J. (2010).Team writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston: Bedfords/St.
Martin's, 80-103.
Wright, N. and Drewery, G. (2002). Cohesion among culturally heterogeneous groups.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(1), 66–72.
Wright, N. S., and Drewery, G. P. (2006). Forming cohesion in culturally heterogeneous
teams. Differences in Japanese, Pacific Islander and Anglo experiences. Cross
Cultural Management, 13(1), 43-53.
Wright, R., and Ellis, M. (1996). Immigrants and the changing raciavethnic division of
labor in New York City, 1970-1990. Urban Geography, 17, 31-53.
www.chemweek.com, Retrieved on July 6, 2012.
Xin, K. R., Pelled, L. H. (2002). Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of
leadership behaviour: a field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 25-40.
Yammarino, F. J. and Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory:
Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology,
47, 787-8 11.
Yancy, G. A. (2003). One body, one spirit: Principles of successful multiracial
churches. Downers Grove. IL: Intervarsity Press.
Yin, K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd
ed.). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th
ed.). London, SAGE
Publications Ltd
280
Yorges, S. L., weiss, H. M., and Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes
on influence, attributions, and perception of charisma. Journal of applied
Psychology, 84,428-439.
Yoon, J., Baker, M. R. and Ko, J. W. (1994). Interpersonal attachment and
organizational commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47,
329-351.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organisation (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 12(4), 451–83.
Zee, K. V., Atsma, N. and Brodbeck, F. (2004). The Influence of social Identity and
Personality on outcomes of Cultural diversity in Team. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35(3), 283-303.
Zhou , H., Long, L. R. and Wang, Y. Q. (2009). What is the most important predictor of
employees' turnover intention in Chinese call centre: job satisfaction,
organisational commitment or career commitment?. International Journal of
Services Technology and Management, 12, (2), 129 – 145.
Zhu, W. Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E. and Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic
transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(5), 801-817.
Zhu, W., May, D. R. and Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership
behaviour on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and
authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 16–26.
Zúquete, P. J. (2011). The flight of the eagle: The charismatic leadership of Sá Carneiro
in Portugal's transition to democracy. The leader Quarterly, 22(2), 295-306.
281
APPENDIX A: STUDY’S QUESTIONNAIR
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
Dear Respondent,
I am a PhD student in Human Resources and Marketing Management at Portsmouth
University in the United Kingdom. I am inviting you to participate in a research project
to study “The Role of Leadership Behaviours in Leading Culturally Diverse Workplaces
Effectively”. With the growth of multi-national organisations and increasing changes in
the work force, issues of cultural diversity hold an important place on managers‟
agenda. Therefore, this study focuses on employees‟ in Saudi Basic Industries
Corporation (SABIC) perception of the role of leadership behaviours in leading cultural
diversity in their work group, as well as their perceptions of selected work-related
outcomes.
The results of this research will assist us in further understanding the characteristics of
leadership in your company in order to better manage culturally diverse groups.
There are several things you need to know about this survey before going further.
All survey responses are anonymous. You do not have to sign or indicate your
name or reveal any information which makes you directly and individually
identifiable.
Only demographic data such as age group, education and work experience are
being collected for purposes of analysing any differences among large groups
across the entire survey population. We ask for your assistance in providing
these data.
Your response is completely voluntary. Your are free to withdraw your
participation at any time, and you may also choose to not answer any questions
that you do not wish to for any reason.
I hope you will be willing to take the time to respond to the questions. Thank you in
advance for participating in this study. If you have any questions concerning this
research, please do not hesitate to contact me at Moudhi.Alzoman@port.ac.uk or call
me on 00447846223884.
Sincerely,
Moudhi Alzoman
282
- Employee Questionnaire
Par I- Background Information.
Please tick the relevant box.
How long have you been with your current company?
From 6 months to less than 1 year
From 1year to less than 3 years
From 3 years to less than 5 years
From 5 years to less than10 years
From 10 years to 20 years
longer than 20 years
How long have you worked under your current line manager?
From 6 months to less than 1 year
From 1year to less than 3 years
From 3 years to less than 5 years
From 5 years to less than10 years
From 10 years to 20 years
longer than 20 years
What is your age group?
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
Over 55
283
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Did not finish high school
High school or equivalent
Some college work completed
Bachelor‟s degree
Master‟s degree
Doctoral degree
Other (Please describe)..............................................................................
What is your nationality?.......................................................................
284
Part II- Line Manager Perceptions
Instructions: Please be as candid as possible, remember, all your responses will remain
strictly anonymous. Indicate the extent to which each of the following items is
characteristic of your current manager by circling the appropriate category next to the
item.
The response categories are as follows: 1 = Very Uncharacteristic, 2 = Uncharacteristic,
3 = Slightly Uncharacteristic, 4 = Slightly Characteristic, 5 = Characteristic, 6 = Very
Characteristic.
285
286
Part III- Leadership Prototypicality
Instructions: Think of your current line manager, please be as candid as possible,
remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the
following statements and circle the appropriate level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither
agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree.
287
Part V - Measure Team Identification
Part V - Measure Team Identification
Instructions: Please read each of the following statements and circling the appropriate
level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= is not at all true for myself to 6 = is totally
true for myself.
288
Part VI- Affective Organisational Commitment
Instructions: Thinking of your current organisation, please be as candid as possible,
remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the
following statements and circle your level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly
disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Slightly agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly
agree.
289
Part VII- Managerial Ethicality
Instructions: Thinking of your current manager, please be as candid as possible,
remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the
following statements and circle the appropriate level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly
disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Slightly agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly
agree.
290
Thank you very much for having completed the questionnaire. I appreciate your
willingness to respond. If you are still happy for me to use your responses, please seal
the completed questionnaire in the attached self-addressed reply envelope and send it to
the researcher.
Thank you again
291
- Line Manager Questionnaire
Part I- Background Information. Please tick the relevant box.
How long have you been with your current company?
From 6 months to less than 1 year
From 1year to less than 3 years
From 3 years to less than 5 years
From 5 years to less than10 years
From 10 years to 20 years
longer than 20 years
What is your age group?
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
Over 55
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Did not finish high school
High school or equivalent
Some college work completed
Bachelor‟s degree
Master‟s degree
Doctoral degree
Other (Please describe)................................................................................
What is your nationality?............................................................................
How many people do you directly supervise?....................................................
Part II- Group Relationship Conflict
Instructions: Thinking of your current group, please be as candid as possible,
292
remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the
following statements and circle the appropriate level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= Not, 2 = a -Little, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Quite-
a-bit, 5 = Very.
293
Part III- Group Cohesion
Instructions: Thinking of your current group, please be as candid as possible,
remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the
following statements and circle the appropriate level of agreement next to it.
The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly
disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Slightly agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly
agree.
Thank you very much for having completed the questionnaire. I appreciate your
willingness to respond. If you are still happy for me to use your responses, please seal
the completed questionnaire in the attached self-addressed reply envelope and send it to
the researcher.
Thank you again
294
APPENDIX B: SABIC PERMISSION
295
APPENDIX C: CRITICAL VALUES OF THE CHI-SQUARE
DISTRIBUTION
296
APPENDIX D: ETHICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST